In re M.C., Juvenile, 204 A.3d 1123

M.C., taken into DCF custody in 2014 and adjudicated CINS, had his parents voluntarily relinquish parental rights in January 2018; DCF retained custody.
In February 2018 DCF sought to place M.C. in an out-of-state residential facility; M.C.’s attorney opposed the placement and requested a hearing under 33 V.S.A. § 5926.
The trial court initially agreed M.C. had a right to a § 5926 hearing, but then reconsidered and held M.C. was not entitled because his parents’ rights had been judicially terminated.
M.C. appealed and also raised a constitutional challenge; the State ultimately agreed M.C. was entitled to a hearing and did not oppose relief in the trial court.
The Vermont Supreme Court construed § 5926 and held its plain language grants neglected and unmanageable children in DCF custody a right to a hearing before out‑of‑state placement regardless of parental‑rights status; the court reversed and remanded.
The court avoided deciding the constitutional claim as unnecessary and preserved the status quo: M.C. remains in his current placement pending the remand proceedings unless ordered otherwise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 33 V.S.A. § 5926 entitles neglected/unmanageable children in DCF custody to a court hearing before out‑of‑state placement even when parental rights have been terminated	M.C.: § 5926’s plain language gives the child the right to request a hearing; parent notice and opportunity to be heard are waived only when parental rights are terminated, not the child’s hearing right	Trial court: statutory protection was intended for parents’ liberty interest; if parental rights terminated the child has no statutory right to the hearing	Court: § 5926 grants all neglected/unmanageable children in DCF custody the right to a hearing before out‑of‑state placement regardless of parental‑rights status; reversed and remanded
Whether court must resolve M.C.’s constitutional due‑process claim	M.C.: statutory scheme and denial of hearing violated state and federal due process rights	State: did not oppose providing the hearing; trial court had not addressed remedial posture fully	Court: constitutional question unnecessary to resolve; statutory construction provided relief (hearing) so claim not decided

State v. Therrien, 38 A.3d 1129 (Vt. 2011) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Herald Ass’n v. Dean, 816 A.2d 469 (Vt. 2002) (apply plain meaning where legislative intent ascertainable)
In re G.T., 758 A.2d 301 (Vt. 2000) (construe statutes to avoid constitutional difficulties)
In re Picket Fence Preview, 795 A.2d 1242 (Vt. 2002) (avoid deciding constitutional questions unnecessarily)
Glidden v. Conley, 820 A.2d 197 (Vt. 2003) (construe statutes to meet constitutional requirements when possible)
In re A.K., 571 A.2d 75 (Vt. 1989) (children, not parents, have the statutory right to request a hearing under the placement compact)
State v. Blake, 174 A.3d 126 (Vt. 2017) (interpret statutes in light of purpose, effects, and consequences)
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. State, 892 A.2d 191 (Vt. 2005) (avoid interpretations producing absurd or illogical results)