In re A.W.
94 A.3d 1161
Vt.2014Background
- Parents' long history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence concerns prompted DCF involvement around A.W.'s birth in Vermont.
- A.W. was born in Vermont in 2012, then moved to New York; mother and father returned cases to Vermont; DCF filed CHINS and emergency care petitions.
- A.W. was placed with paternal grandparents in Vermont after an emergency order; ongoing disputes over jurisdiction and home state.
- The trial court initially found emergency jurisdiction existed in Vermont but later retained jurisdiction through to the merits hearing.
- The court later determined A.W. had no clear home state under the UCCJEA, then concluded Vermont had sufficient connections to exercise jurisdiction.
- The CHINS merits order found A.W. was without proper parental care due to ongoing parental problems with mental health, alcohol, and domestic violence; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vermont had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Mother and Father contend no home state or proper basis for jurisdiction. | State maintains Vermont has jurisdiction under UCCJEA due to connections and emergency needs. | Vermont had jurisdiction under UCCJEA §1071(a)(2) given Vermont connections. |
| Whether AW had a home state under §1071 | AW had no home state in Vermont or New York. | New York claimed home state; Vermont arguments emphasized connections/evidence. | Neither state met the home-state definition; Vermont still valid under §1071(a)(2) due to connections and evidence. |
| Whether the court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction | Emergency jurisdiction not properly established since AW was not present in Vermont and not subjected to abuse/mistreatment. | Early emergency measures were appropriate given the chaotic birth and risks; continued jurisdiction permissible. | Court's emergency-jurisdiction analysis unnecessary to resolve the CHINS under §1071; jurisdiction sustained under the statute. |
| Whether the evidence supported CHINS finding that AW lacked proper parental care | Post-petition events should not drive the CHINS determination; pre-petition concerns are insufficient. | Pre- and post-petition evidence of parental issues (substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence) justified CHINS. | Record supported CHINS based on persistent parental problems and risks. |
| Whether Vermont was an inconvenient forum warranting dismissal | Forum non conveniens arguments favor dismissal to New York. | Vermont actions favored child welfare; convenience factors weighed in favor of Vermont. | No abuse of discretion; Vermont proper forum; dismissal not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.P., 193 Vt. 29 (2012 VT) (defines home state and de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)
- In re E.T., 137 P.3d 1035 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (u antennae on UCCJEA home-state connections)
- In re D.T., 170 Vt. 148 (1999) (home-state analysis for infants under six months)
- In re Cifarelli, 158 Vt. 249 (1992) (six-month home-state analysis; temporary absence concept)
- In re S.M., 938 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (totality of circumstances test for temporary absence)
- In re R.P., 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (infant home-state absence and most-significant-connection approach)
- Rocissono v. Spykes, 170 Vt. 309 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard for jurisdictional decisions)