In re B.G., Juvenile, 155 A.3d 179

Background

B.G., born 2006, lived primarily with paternal grandparents/step-grandmother after mother’s substance abuse and abusive relationships; mother had sporadic supervised visitation.
Mother developed heroin addiction (2010), underwent treatment attempts, and by 2014 was in medication-assisted treatment but continued marijuana use and daily travel for dosing; she did not meaningfully participate in B.G.’s schooling, medical care, or counseling.
Grandparents were authorized by mother to handle school and medical matters; step-grandmother handled all interactions with schools, doctors, dentists, and counselors.
In January 2014 DCF and family agreed grandparents would retain care and that DCF would seek custody if mother attempted to remove B.G.; mother never progressed beyond supervised visits with half-sister C.B.
State filed CHINS petition alleging lack of proper parental care in January 2015 and later added abandonment; family court found abandonment and lack of proper parental care and adjudicated B.G. CHINS.
Mother appealed, arguing she had arranged safe care with grandparents and therefore did not abandon B.G.; the appellate court affirmed on the abandonment ground.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether B.G. was "abandoned" under 33 V.S.A. § 5102(3)(A)	Mother arranged for grandparents to provide safe, appropriate care and thus did not abandon B.G.	Mother’s long-term abdication of parental responsibilities showed unwillingness to have physical custody, supporting abandonment regardless of arrangements.	Court affirmed CHINS on abandonment: mother voluntarily ceded parental responsibilities and was unwilling to assume physical custody.
Whether lack of proper parental care under § 5102(3)(B) independently supported CHINS	Mother: child was receiving proper parental care from grandparents, so CHINS B is inapplicable.	State: mother’s unaddressed addiction/victimization rendered her unable to provide proper care.	Court did not need to decide because abandonment finding was sufficient; family court had also found mother unable to provide proper care.
Appropriate focus for CHINS inquiry timing	Mother: relevant inquiry is child’s status at filing; the agreement to leave child with grandparents shows present arrangement was safe.	State: mother’s conduct before and up to filing showed de facto abandonment.	Court focused on mother’s conduct up to filing and credited actions over testimony in finding abandonment.
Standard of review for credibility and findings	Mother contested court’s credibility findings.	State argued court properly weighed credibility and evidence.	Appellate court deferred to family court’s credibility determinations and factual findings.

Key Cases Cited

In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175, 624 A.2d 867 (1993) (family court has discretion to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence)
In re N.H., 135 Vt. 230, 373 A.2d 851 (1977) (State must produce sufficient evidence before interfering with parental rights)
In re D.T., 170 Vt. 148, 743 A.2d 1077 (1999) (CHINS inquiry focuses on child’s status at time of petition)
In re G.C., 170 Vt. 329, 749 A.2d 28 (2000) (parental care may be provided by nonparents; CHINS B requires a risk to child’s welfare despite arrangements)
In re B.R., 196 Vt. 304, 97 A.3d 867 (2014) (CHINS proceedings are child-centered; noncustodial parent’s unfitness alone does not make child a CHINS if child’s needs are met)