In re C. P.
193 Vt. 29
| Vt. | 2012Background
- C.P., born November 2009 in New York, was placed in Vermont with his aunt after the mother’s abandonment concerns and a safety plan.
- The Vermont DCF filed CHINS and later a petition to terminate parental rights, with concurrent reunification and adoption goals.
- Initial emergency UCCJA jurisdiction was invoked in Vermont, although the parents' home state was New York; Vermont became C.P.'s home state by the time termination was filed.
- Parents had limited and unreliable visitation, including a long travel distance (Newport, VT to New York) and missed visits.
- A disposition/termination hearing occurred in 2011; the court terminated parental rights in January 2012, finding best interests favored termination due to lack of meaningful parent–child bond and ability to resume parenting.
- DCF’s later post-termination finding concluded that reasonable efforts were made toward the permanency plan; the court struck a prior statement alleging lack of reasonable efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under UCCJA to adjudicate termination. | Parents contend Vermont lacked emergency/home-state jurisdiction; collaterally attack CHINS. | Vermont had home-state jurisdiction by the termination petition; CHINS finality does not void later jurisdiction. | Vermont had home-state jurisdiction; collateral attack failed; jurisdiction proper. |
| Whether termination was in C.P.'s best interests to justify severing parental rights. | Mother argues progress and potential to reunify within a reasonable time. | Court found bond with foster care and parental incapacity to resume within reasonable time. | Termination supported; best-interests factors satisfied. |
| Whether DCF made reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan. | Father challenges lack of reasonable efforts to reunify/adopt. | DCF made reasonable efforts toward permanency including reunification and adoption plans. | DCF's reasonable-efforts finding upheld; efforts deemed reasonable. |
| Whether the court properly addressed the coexistence of termination and reasonable-efforts determinations. | Father asserts the order improperly modified termination based on reasonable efforts. | Reasonable-efforts issue is separate from best-interests; not a prerequisite to termination. | Separate questions; no error; court could revisit reasonable efforts if needed. |
| Whether New York should have assumed jurisdiction or influenced the outcome. | New York had primary interest; Vermont’s exercise of jurisdiction is improper. | No ongoing New York proceedings; Vermont home-state status justified the outcome. | No reversible error; Vermont’s jurisdiction appropriate given the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.C., 169 Vt. 1 (1999) (establishes home-state jurisdiction and collateral attack limits in CHINS/TPR context)
- In re R.W., 2011 VT 124 (2011) (defines jurisdiction and home-state concepts under UCCJA/UCCJEA)
- In re D.T., 170 Vt. 148 (1999) (emergency jurisdiction limited to temporary orders; permanent orders require home-state basis)
- In re A.L.H., 160 Vt. 410 (1993) (clarifies emergency jurisdiction and disposition proceedings)
- In re J.T., 166 Vt. 173 (1997) (best-interests factors; reasonableness of reunification time)
- In re J.M., 170 Vt. 587 (2000) (reasonable-efforts considerations in termination context)