In re D.D.
2013 Vt. LEXIS 130
| Vt. | 2013Background
- D.D., born 2007, has obstructive uropathy requiring ongoing specialist monitoring, quarterly nephrology testing, weekly Epogen injections, catheter care, and lab monitoring to delay dialysis/transplant.
- DCF petitioned in Feb 2012 alleging inadequate medical care; the court granted emergency temporary custody to DCF and held a merits hearing in May–June 2012.
- Medical testimony: nephrologist and pediatrician confirmed need for regular testing; records and witnesses reflected multiple missed or rescheduled specialist appointments and several missed Epogen administrations; transportation and frequent moves contributed.
- The trial court issued oral findings at the merits hearing, then adopted DCF’s proposed written findings verbatim (some of which contained assertions unsupported or contradicted by the record) and adjudicated D.D. a CHINS for medical neglect; disposition followed in October 2012.
- Father filed a notice of appeal after disposition; the State argued the merits appeal was untimely, but the Court reached the merits and affirmed the CHINS adjudication on the substantive record-supported findings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State/DCF’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Notice filed after disposition; father contends CHINS merits may be appealed with disposition | Merits adjudication is final and must be appealed within 30 days | Merits adjudication is a final, appealable order; father’s appeal was untimely but Court reached merits prospectively and clarified rule going forward |
| Sufficiency/support for written findings | Many written findings were unsupported or contradicted record; adoption of DCF’s proposed findings without scrutiny improper | Key findings (oral and some written) were supported and sufficient to uphold CHINS | Several written findings were unsupported, but remaining record-supported findings were sufficient to affirm CHINS for medical neglect |
| Hearsay evidence of missed appointments | Challenged admission of an appointment tally compiled by an unnamed staffer | State relied on other admissible testimony corroborating missed appointments | Court declined to decide hearsay error because admissible evidence independently supported relevant appointment gaps |
| Legal sufficiency of CHINS finding (medical neglect) | Record does not compel CHINS; parents provided daily care, nurse visits, and most shots; missed specialist visits did not prove actual harm | Child’s serious progressive condition plus missed specialist visits and missed Epogen doses created substantial danger warranting CHINS | Affirmed: supported findings (progressive disease, necessity of regular testing/medication, documented missed appointments and shots, transportation/instability problems) justify CHINS under 33 V.S.A. § 5102(3)(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents’ liberty interest in child custody implicates heightened protections)
- In re C.P., 193 Vt. 29 (Vt. 2012) (holding a CHINS merits adjudication is a final, appealable order)
- In re A.D.T., 174 Vt. 369 (Vt. 2002) (finality test: order disposing of all matters before the court)
- In re B.M., 165 Vt. 194 (Vt. 1995) (in juvenile cases, unsupported findings do not mandate reversal if remaining supported findings sustain decision)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parental liberty interests in childrearing)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1944) (state authority to regulate for child welfare)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights against state removal of child)