253 A.3d 443
Vt.2021Background
- C.L.S. was the subject of a CHINS petition shortly after his 2018 birth; parents’ rights were terminated by the family court in July 2019.
- This Court affirmed the termination on January 10, 2020; the probate court adoption of C.L.S. by his foster parents was finalized on February 6, 2020.
- Father filed a V.R.C.P. 60(b) motion on February 26, 2020, seeking to vacate the termination order based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the CHINS/termination proceedings.
- DCF and the juvenile (child) moved to dismiss, asserting the family court lost subject-matter jurisdiction upon adoption under 33 V.S.A. § 5103(d); father relied on 33 V.S.A. § 5113(a) (incorporating Rule 60) and raised constitutional challenges.
- The family court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and alternatively for untimeliness; it also rejected father’s due-process and equal-protection claims.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed: § 5103(d) terminated family-court jurisdiction upon adoption (absent a pending juvenile proceeding), and applying § 5103(d) did not violate due process or equal protection; the Court did not decide whether there is a constitutional or statutory right to effective counsel in CHINS proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DCF/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court had jurisdiction post-adoption to hear a Rule 60 motion | §5113(a) (incorporating Rule 60) permits setting aside orders even after adoption | §5103(d) expressly terminates family-court jurisdiction automatically upon adoption after TPR if no juvenile proceeding is pending | Court lacked jurisdiction under §5103(d); §5103(d) controls over §5113(a) in this context |
| Whether §5103(d) application violates due process by denying remedy for ineffective counsel | Father would be deprived of meaningful process to challenge an erroneous TPR caused by counsel’s ineffectiveness | Parent had alternative remedies (direct appeal, motion during appeal, stay/remand, probate limitations) and the State has compelling interests in permanency and finality | No due-process violation; interests in timely permanency and finality outweigh the incremental procedural interest |
| Whether §5103(d) application violates equal protection / Vermont Common Benefits Clause | Parents whose children are adopted are arbitrarily excluded from post-adoption Rule 60 relief | All similarly situated (parents whose rights were terminated and whose children adopted) are treated the same; classification reasonably relates to permanency objective | No equal-protection/Common Benefits Clause violation |
| Whether Court should recognize a right to effective assistance of counsel in CHINS or adopt a different standard than Strickland | Father urges recognition of such a right and a relaxed standard for CHINS cases | State urged the Court need not decide and that existing procedures suffice | Court declined to decide the existence or standard for an effective-counsel right because resolution was unnecessary to the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (federal standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (due-process standards for parental-termination proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for process due)
- Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982) (harm from prolonged uncertainty in child-placement cases)
- In re A.W., 195 Vt. 226, 87 A.3d 508 (Vt. 2013) (statutory purpose of timely permanency constrains post-TPR relief)
- In re K.F., 194 Vt. 64, 72 A.3d 908 (Vt. 2013) (addressing ineffective-assistance arguments in TPR context)
- Dep’t of Human Servs. v. B.A.S., 221 P.3d 806 (Or. 2009) (upholding limit on post-adoption set-aside motions to pre-adoption period)
- In re P.K., 204 Vt. 102, 164 A.3d 665 (Vt. 2017) (emphasizing the need for finality in termination cases)