In re L.M., Juvenile
195 Vt. 637
| Vt. | 2014Background
- L.M. born June 2010; DCF filed CHINS petition May 31, 2013; temporary custody given to paternal grandmother on June 4, 2013; mother stipulated CHINS due to drug use and homelessness; father contested CHINS and did not attend the merits hearing; court found CHINS against father based on chronic drug addiction, homelessness, and failure to follow DCF recommendations.
- Parents were not living together; L.M. primarily with mother at petition time; social worker documented long history of housing instability and parental drug use; father admitted to opiate addiction and self-medicating with Suboxone but did not obtain a substance-abuse evaluation; father failed to enroll L.M. in daycare or secure stable housing; grandmother ultimately cared for L.M. while court proceedings continued.
- Social worker repeatedly urged evaluations and services; DCF evidence showed persistent risk factors despite recommendations; CHINS finding relied on evidence of lack of stable housing, ongoing addiction, and failure to follow through on services; the court concluded there was risk of prospective harm to L.M. and thus temporary state intervention was warranted.
- On appeal, father challenged admissibility of certain hearsay as party-admissions and argued L.M. could not be CHINS while living with grandmother; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding the error harmless and upholding CHINS based on admissible evidence.
- Dissent argued evidence did not show individualized risk of harm; would require more concrete showing of actual risk to CHINS, not broad generalizations about addiction and housing instability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearsay evidence against father was improperly admitted | Father (through State) sought to rely on mother’s out-of-court statements | Statements were not admissible against father under Rule 801(d)(2) as party-admissions | Error harmless; insufficient to require reversal; CHINS supported by other admissible evidence |
| Whether L.M. could be CHINS while living with grandmother | CHINS supported by minimal parental care failure despite placement with grandmother | Care provided by grandmother does not negate CHINS if risk factors persist | CHINS affirmed based on overall risk and lack of follow-through by father |
| Whether proven evidence showed risk of harm from father's addiction | Chronic addiction and housing instability pose risk to child’s well-being | Evidence insufficient to show concrete harm to child | Record supports risk to child’s well-being justifying temporary state intervention |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of evidence | Preponderance standard applied to CHINS; scope includes pre-petition conditions | Need for individualized risk rather than broad generalizations | Court’s findings supported CHINS under proper standard; reverse not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.T., 170 Vt. 148 (1999) (determines CHINS merits scope and pre-petition considerations)
- In re R.L., 148 Vt. 223 (1987) (merits hearing focuses on whether state can prove CHINS allegations)
- In re G.C., 170 Vt. 329 (2000) (parental care arrangements vs. risk to child; individualized assessment)
- In re N.H., 135 Vt. 230 (1977) (limits on state interference with parent-child relationship; constitutional safeguards)
- In re M.E., 2010 VT 105 (2010) (statutory framework for CHINS and related procedures)
- In re D.D., 2013 VT 79 (2013) (review standard for CHINS findings; support by admissible evidence)