Legal termination of parental rights (TPR) occurs when a parent's legal relationship to the child is severed. Nationally, up to 1 in 100 children may experience TPR before turning 18 years old. While TPR is intended to protect children when reunification is not possible, delays in TPR can prolong uncertainty, negatively impact child well-being, and delay permanent placements. Understanding the factors that contribute to delays in TPR can help inform policies and practices that promote timely permanency and improve outcomes for children and families.

TPR Delays & Appeals

• Parents have a constitutional right to appeal TPR decisions. Such appeals can cause delays in permanency (i.e., a legal outcome that can result in a permanent, safe, and stable living situation).¹
• Shortages of judges and court backlogs are a primary cause of delays in legal permanency, with some appeals of TPR decisions taking a year or more for a decision to be issued.
• When parties to the custody case live in different states, the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) requires administrative procedures that can also delay the process.
• Many TPR appeals are filed by an by an incarcerated parent who is temporarily unable to care for their child. For parents who are incarcerated for only a short time, the child is frequently placed with a non-incarcerated co-parent or other kin, as length of incarceration is one of many factors considered in TPR decisions.  
• If a guardian or prospective adoptive parents have not already been identified, judges may be reluctant to TPR because they want to avoid creating "legal orphans" (i.e., the situation of a child not having any legal parents).

Impact of Delays in TPR²

TPR Before Adoption is Finalized

• Children who have already been placed in an adoptive home may not be aware of the TPR appeal. This can make the process seamless from the child's perspective. Adoptive parents may feel dissuaded by the delay in permanent legal status.
• Delays in permanency can be particularly challenging for children who have not been successfully placed in an adoptive home, as older children tend to have a harder time adjusting to a new family. However, the TPR alone is not the cause of the delay in permanency. Instead, this delay is due to a lack of placement options with kin or unrelated adoptive families.

TPR From Parental Incarceration

• Incarceration can result in long-term caregiver separation, which is frequently classified as "abandonment" and used as grounds for TPR. As a result, incarceration can pose a barrier for parents to appeal for TPRs.   
• Although children of incarcerated parents are at risk for certain negative outcomes (e.g., low educational attainment, antisocial behavior), factors such as engagement in extracurriculars and supportive relationships with other family members and school teachers have been shown to foster resilience in the face of parental incarceration.
  • It is challenging to reliably predict whether visits between incarcerated parents and their children may be helpful or harmful for the child.
  • These complexities can also make it difficult for states to determine the appropriate timeframe for making TPR decisions for children whose parents are incarcerated.

Additional Considerations

Understanding Demographic Differences in TPR Outcomes

• Socioeconomic status is an important contextual factor in TPR petitions, as systemic conditions associated with poverty may be misclassified as parental neglect, despite poverty itself not being legal grounds for TPR.
• TPR are highest among Native American and African American children because of systemic inequities including greater contact with public systems, challenges meeting reunification timelines, and the effects of parental incarceration.

Efforts to address delays in TPR appeals:

• National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise. NEICE was created to help expedite placements, while continuing to prioritize child safety.
• Court Improvement Programs. CIPs use federal funding to assess and improve child welfare and judicial practices.
• New York has been exploring alternatives to traditional TPRs that require continued parental access when deemed safe for the child.
• Research points to the benefits of going beyond administrative data alone to understand youth's lived experiences after TPR and permanent placements have been made to help inform future decision making.

________________________

¹Legal permanence (e.g., adoption/guardianship) doesn't equal relational permanence (i.e., ongoing, meaningful connection). Children don't always know their permanency status. Some relationships dissolve after legal permanence. Other times youth have reported being adopted or under guardianship despite official records showing emancipation or another outcome.

²As a field, child welfare has been moving away from adoptions and toward other types of placements that have been associated with positive outcomes for children (e.g., kinship care/guardianship or reunification). Additional research could shed light on when eacsh placement type may be in the best interests of the child.