2011 VT 30
Vt.2011Background
- K.M.M. has been a ward of her grandfather since 11/20/2001 due to parents’ voluntary guardianship amid substance abuse and father’s incarceration.
- Father sought termination of the guardianship starting in 2002; grandfather sought termination of father’s parental rights and adoption.
- Probate court denied a termination petition for father in 2009; superior court upheld that denial but denied termination of the guardianship, maintaining status quo.
- Case evaluations showed a fraught, mistrustful relationship between father and grandfather, hindering joint plan for KM.M.’s custody.
- KM.M. is 11; she is well-adjusted at grandfather’s home, with strong ties to grandfather, his partner, and their extended family.
- Visitation and evaluations over the years culminated in a 2009–2010 visitation plan showing father’s readiness to resume custody, leading to appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the burden of proof properly placed under 15A V.S.A. § 3-504 in termination cases? | Grandfather argues failure to meet any 3-504 factor suffices to terminate. | Father argues the court should presume best interests with him and not shift burden. | Court held the burden rests on the party opposing revocation; error in shifting burden to father. |
| Should the guardianship be terminated given best interests and parental presumption? | Grandfather contends guardianship should continue; father’s rights may be terminated. | Father argues best interests favor transfer to him; guardian’s role is overbroad. | Superior court erred by not terminating the voluntary guardianship; Boisvert presumption favors custody to parent. |
| Does a constitutional parental presumption require returning KM.M. to father, with procedural steps? | Father’s parental right to custody should be recognized given progress. | Grandfather argues best interests and continuity of care require guardianship. | Court affirmed approach recognizing parental presumption and ordered custody transfer to father on remand. |
| Does the best-interests framework under 15A V.S.A. § 3-504(c) support termination of guardianship and return to father? | Shared evidence shows father’s readiness and KM.M.’s positive relationship with him. | Grandfather emphasizes KM.M.’s stable guardianship and lack of current custody plan. | Best-interests analysis supports termination of guardianship and transfer to father. |
| Was delay and probate-court handling seven years of custody disputes acceptable? | Delay undermined parental rights and KM.M.’s stability. | Court should balance family complexity and best interests. | Court condemned probate-delay; remanded to effect prompt custody transfer to father. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boisvert v. Harrington, 173 Vt. 285 (Vt. 2002) (presumes parental custody in guardianship context; evidentiary hearing allowed to determine best interests; burden on opponents to rebut presumption)
- In re J.C., 169 Vt. 139 (Vt. 1999) (guides 3-504(a)(2) factors and best interests)
- In re B.M., 165 Vt. 194 (Vt. 1996) (best interests factors for termination; importance of likelihood to resume parental duties)
- In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294 (Vt. 1988) (parental custody rights and guardianship considerations; fit parent’s rights emphasized)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (constitutional liberty interest of parents in care, custody, and control of children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in care and custody reaffirmed)