In re A.S. and K.S., Juveniles, 150 A.3d 197

DCF had prior involvement with mother due to substance abuse and her relationship with K.S.’s father, who had a history of assaultive behavior.
A CHINS petition was filed December 4, 2014, alleging mother’s inability to stay away from K.S.’s father and related safety concerns; petition referenced a November 2014 assault.
Emergency care order placed children in DCF custody January 2015; initial temporary-care evidentiary hearing was not held within the 72‑hour statutory window.
Multiple continuances, scheduling conflicts, and docket congestion delayed the merits hearing until January 2016—over a year after the petition and months after temporary-care arrangements.
At the January 2016 merits hearing the court relied on facts as of the time the petition was filed and adjudicated A.S. and K.S. as CHINS by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the court should consider evidence of changed circumstances post‑petition at the merits hearing	Mother: CHINS determination should be based on present circumstances and the court erred by focusing exclusively on facts at filing	State: Merits hearing properly focused on facts underlying the petition (and issue not preserved)	Court: Issue not preserved below; affirmed. Court relied on record as framed at trial.
Whether appellate court should address arguments not raised in family court	Mother: (raised on appeal) court should nevertheless consider post‑petition evidence	State: Objection that issue was not raised below; preservation required	Court: Declined to address new argument because mother failed to raise it below and even joined in objection to admitting post‑petition evidence.
Whether delays in juvenile proceedings violated statutory timelines or require reversal	Mother: (implied) delay problematic	State: Timelines are directory; case-by-case circumstances vary	Court: Timelines are directory not jurisdictional; identified and criticized systemic delays but declined to reverse.

In re D.C., 613 A.2d 191 (Vt. 1991) (preservation—issue must be presented to trial court first)
In re C.H., 749 A.2d 20 (Vt. 2000) (appellate courts generally do not address issues not raised below)
In re M.B., 605 A.2d 515 (Vt. 1992) (statutory timing requirements for juvenile proceedings are directory, not jurisdictional)
Paquette v. Paquette, 499 A.2d 23 (Vt. 1985) (parental custody and family integrity are fundamental rights)
In re C.L., 468 A.2d 563 (Vt. 1983) (state’s parens patriae interest can justify overriding parental rights when juveniles’ protection is required)