In re C.B., Juvenile, 249 A.3d 1281

Background

DCF filed a CHINS petition for C.B. in Oct. 2017; mother stipulated to the merits in Jan. 2018 and C.B. entered custody proceedings after mother violated a conditional-custody order.
Father’s parentage was adjudicated Jan. 2018; he was given supervised-contact rights but did not follow through and was incarcerated from Nov. 2018 onward.
DCF developed a reunification case plan for father; father made little to no progress, had significant criminal and mental-health history, and had no contact or bond with C.B.
Petitions to terminate parental rights were filed May 2019; mother relinquished conditioned on termination of father’s rights; C.B. remained placed with foster parents and was thriving there.
Paternal grandmother sought visitation in the juvenile case and a guardianship in probate; the family division declined visitation and, after judicial consultation, transferred the probate guardianship back to probate in inactive status pending resolution of the juvenile TPR case.
The family division found changed circumstances and that termination of father’s rights was in C.B.’s best interests; father appealed raising claims about the grandmother’s suitability assessment, visitation, guardianship handling, counsel/standing, and collateral attack on CHINS merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to order a suitability assessment of paternal grandmother at the May 2018 temporary-care hearing	Father: probate/DCF should have completed statutory suitability assessment under 33 V.S.A. § 5307(e) for grandmother as potential placement	State: father failed to preserve objection below; court/DCF had reasons (e.g., grandmother’s prior violations) to deem her inappropriate	Not preserved; appellate court declines to address merits due to lack of objection below
Denial of grandparent visitation in juvenile proceeding	Father: grandmother should have standing/visitation	State: grandparents are not statutory parties in juvenile proceedings and there is no statutory right to visitation absent motion by child’s attorney	Court properly denied; family division within authority to refuse grandmother as party and visitation absent statutory basis
Handling of guardianship petition (transfer/consolidation between probate and family divisions)	Father: family division improperly put probate guardianship on inactive status, precluding probate action and prioritizing TPR without case-specific analysis	State/Family division: acted per 14 V.S.A. § 2624 options; family division has discretion to consolidate or transfer back to probate and to prioritize child’s best interests	Court acted within statutory discretion; transferring guardianship back to probate pending disposition was permissible and not an abuse of discretion
Counsel/standing and collateral attack on CHINS merits	Father: was denied counsel and deprived of standing at merits because mother stipulated to merits without his agreement; thus merits disposition void	State: father was provided public-defender application and was assigned counsel when he requested one; merits disposition became final and unappealed so cannot be collaterally attacked absent voidness (which father did not establish)	Father received counsel when requested; merits decision is final and not subject to collateral attack here; no due-process voidness shown

Key Cases Cited

In re D.F., 204 A.3d 641 (Vt. 2018) (standards for TPR after initial disposition and appellate review of factual findings)
In re C.H., 749 A.2d 20 (Vt. 2000) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
In re A.M., 130 A.3d 211 (Vt. 2015) (clarifying specificity needed to preserve issues)
In re M.S., 176 A.3d 1124 (Vt. 2017) (statutory interpretation of permissive "may")
In re D.H., 173 A.3d 883 (Vt. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re L.H., 182 A.3d 612 (Vt. 2018) (right to counsel in juvenile/TPR proceedings)
In re C.L.S., 225 A.3d 644 (Vt. 2020) (prohibition on collateral attack of final CHINS merits determination)
In re L.R.R., 469 A.2d 1173 (Vt. 1983) (appellate deference to discretionary rulings)
In re F.P., 665 A.2d 597 (Vt. 1995) (focus on child welfare in CHINS proceedings)
In re Adoption of B.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271 (Vt. 1993) (welfare of child as primary concern in dispositional statutes)