In re A.M., Juveniles, 222 A.3d 489

A.M., born 2012, lived primarily with mother in Vermont after the parents separated in 2013; father lived in Colorado and had summer parenting time under a Colorado divorce decree.
DCF filed a CHINS petition in Vermont in February 2018 alleging mother’s heroin use and suicidal statements; mother stipulated to the CHINS adjudication in May 2018.
DCF recommended transferring custody to father; Colorado ceded jurisdiction over custody to Vermont and DCF placed A.M. with father in Colorado.
After a contested disposition hearing, the Vermont family division transferred legal custody to father and preserved mother’s parent-child contact; the court also ordered mother to pay at least 75% of transportation costs for A.M.’s travel to Vermont for visits.
Mother appealed only the transportation-cost allocation, arguing the CHINS court lacked authority to make such a financial award (the State joined mother). The Supreme Court reversed that portion of the order and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a CHINS disposition order may allocate travel costs for unsupervised parent-child visits	Mother: No statutory authority; allocation was not requested, parties lacked notice, and no financial-disclosure procedures were followed	State (joined mother): Court lacked authority; order inappropriate in CHINS proceeding	Court: Reversed the 75% travel-cost allocation — no statutory authority in CHINS statutes to allocate travel costs for unsupervised visits at disposition
Whether a CHINS court may enter a child-support–type order when the child is not in DCF custody	Mother: Even if travel allocation equates to support, §5116 permits child-support orders only while the child is in Commissioner custody	Court/father (implicit): Order could be justified as part of disposition or equitable allocation	Court: §5116 allows child-support orders only while child is in Commissioner custody; cannot be used here to justify the travel-cost allocation

In re Lee, 224 A.2d 917 (Vt. 1966) (juvenile court exercises special, limited statutory powers)
In re J.S., 571 A.2d 658 (Vt. 1989) (juvenile court lacks authority to use procedures without statutory authorization)
In re M.C.P., 571 A.2d 627 (Vt. 1989) (reiterating limits on juvenile-court powers without statutory basis)
State v. VanBuren, 214 A.3d 791 (Vt. 2018) (standard of review for pure legal questions)