In re A.A., Juvenile, 236 A.3d 1287

A.A., born 2003, was adjudicated delinquent on a 2016 larceny case and placed at Woodside (secure juvenile facility); he returned home in Dec. 2017 but was later administratively held at Woodside during subsequent proceedings.
In June 2018 A.A. faced criminal charges for assault and robbery; that case was later transferred to the family division as a delinquency petition (Docket No. 579-12-18 Cnjv).
The family division originally issued a Woodside placement referencing both the larceny and assault-and-robbery matters, but then vacated the placement as to the assault-and-robbery docket; A.A. nevertheless remained at Woodside under the larceny docket.
When the assault-and-robbery matter was converted to a delinquency petition, no new secure-placement order was entered in that docket because A.A. was already detained under the larceny case. A preliminary hearing on the assault-and-robbery petition occurred Jan. 3, 2019.
The merits hearing on the assault-and-robbery petition took place Feb. 14 and Mar. 28, 2019, and the family division adjudicated A.A. delinquent. A.A. appealed, arguing the petition must be dismissed because the family division failed to adjudicate merits within 45 days of the preliminary hearing under 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b).
The State conceded § 5291(b) would require dismissal if it applied, but argued it does not apply to a petition that lacks its own secure-placement order; the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed the adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b)’s 45‑day merits timeline applies to a delinquency petition where the juvenile is detained at a secure facility under a different docket and no secure‑placement order was entered in the petition at issue	§ 5291(b) applies to any petition involving a juvenile who is physically detained in a secure facility; failure to adjudicate within 45 days requires dismissal and vacatur of placement	§ 5291(b) applies only to the specific petition that includes a court order placing the juvenile in a secure facility; it does not apply when detention stems from a different docket’s placement order	The statute is case‑specific; § 5291(b) applies only to the petition that includes the secure‑placement order. Because no placement order was entered in the assault‑and‑robbery docket, § 5291(b) did not apply and dismissal was unwarranted.

Vt. Human Rights Comm’n v. State, Agency of Transp., 60 A.3d 702 (recognizing mandatory statutory timing when paired with an express consequence)
Murdoch v. Town of Shelburne, 939 A.2d 458 (plain‑meaning construction to effectuate legislative intent)
State v. Love, 174 A.3d 761 (look beyond isolated language if ambiguity exists)
State v. Singer, 749 A.2d 614 (distinguishing mandatory from directory statutory time limits)
Doyle v. City of Burlington, 219 A.3d 326 (apply plain meaning where statute unambiguous)