In re A.E., Juvenile
2016-217
| Vt. | Nov 4, 2016Background
- Child A.E., born Oct. 2014, was placed in DCF custody days after birth; parents stipulated CHINS in Jan. 2015 and court adopted concurrent reunification/adoption goals.
- By July 2015 DCF moved to terminate parental rights; parents stopped visiting by Aug. 2015; mother continued illicit drug use and emotional dysfunction through the termination hearing.
- A.E. lived in the same foster home since five days old, was well adjusted and bonded to foster parents.
- Maternal grandmother (in Massachusetts) sought placement; Vermont sent an ICPC request in Mar. 2015 and Massachusetts denied placement in June 2015 citing criminal/DCF histories and eligibility concerns.
- Grandmother moved for party status late (Apr. 2015 motion denied; renewed only at termination hearing); family court denied party status and found grandmother’s intervention untimely and that ICPC approval was required for out-of-state placement.
- Family court found no likelihood parents could resume parenting within a reasonable time, parents did not play a constructive role, and termination of parental rights was in A.E.’s best interests; parents appealed arguing ICPC/placement and due-process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not considering transfer of legal custody to maternal grandmother at termination | Mother: court abused discretion by failing to consider custody transfer to grandmother under 33 V.S.A. § 5318(a)(7) | State: placement questions irrelevant to post-disposition termination; termination hinges on parental fitness and best interests | Denied — placement alternatives don’t defeat termination; mother lacks standing to raise placement as defense; unchallenged findings support termination |
| Whether father’s due-process rights were violated by court’s application of ICPC and by not placing child with grandmother | Father: court’s ICPC application and exclusion of grandmother interfered with parental rights and denied due process | State: State has legitimate child-welfare interest; removal based on CHINS stipulation and findings, not ICPC outcome | Denied — no substantive due-process violation; termination supported by independent findings and proper process regarding best interests |
| Whether DCF’s handling of the ICPC (delay/incomplete advice) affected termination decision | Father: DCF delayed ICPC and misadvised grandmother, preventing placement | State: ICPC process and DCF conduct do not bear on whether termination is in child’s best interests | Denied — procedural ICPC issues irrelevant to termination standard; placement options do not negate basis for termination |
| Whether federal ASFA relative-placement preference required placement with grandmother | Father: ASFA requires giving preference to relatives over nonrelatives | State: ASFA expresses a preference, not an absolute requirement; noncompliance not a defense to termination | Denied — ASFA preference is not mandatory and does not defeat termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.B., 152 Vt. 415 (Vt. 1989) (State may intervene to protect child; parental substantive due-process claim rejected)
- In re J.B., 167 Vt. 637 (Vt. 1998) (most important best-interest factor is whether parent can resume parenting within a reasonable period)
- In re S.W., 183 Vt. 610 (Vt. 2008) (post-disposition termination focuses on change in circumstances and child’s best interests; placement options not dispositive)
- In re D.S., 196 Vt. 325 (Vt. 2014) (termination of parental rights not dependent on children’s placement options)