In re M.E., Juvenile, 225 A.3d 633

Background

DCF filed a CHINS petition in May 2019 after reports that five‑year‑old M.E. had been exposed to parental drug use and paraphernalia; an emergency-care order placed custody with DCF and a merits hearing followed.
The petition rested on mother’s admission of one heroin use about a week before DCF’s visit (for tooth pain), the child’s out‑of‑court remarks about small baggies and parental smoking, and family observations of parents appearing withdrawn, losing weight, and wearing long sleeves.
A DCF caseworker observed a cluttered bedroom accessible to M.E., vape cartridges on a desk, a dusty shelf with a square void the child identified as where a box had been, and noted mother’s small pupils and shakiness.
Parents disputed much of the circumstantial evidence: mother reengaged in substance‑abuse treatment and denied ongoing use; father testified he has been sober from opiates since 2008 and smokes marijuana but is not the primary caregiver.
The family court found the evidence vague and conflicting, credited parents’ explanations, concluded the State failed to prove CHINS by a preponderance, and dismissed the petition; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.
Chief Justice Reiber dissented, arguing the trial court failed to weigh and analyze substantial evidence (including the child’s statements and family/caseworker testimony) and that the record required clearer findings or remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (M.E./State)	Defendant's Argument (Parents)	Held
Whether the evidence showed M.E. was a child in need of care (CHINS) due to parental drug use/exposure	Child’s statements plus family and caseworker observations establish ongoing parental drug use while child in care and risk of harm	Evidence was vague/ambiguous; mother’s single heroin use was for pain and she entered treatment; father is not primary caregiver and marijuana use did not endanger child	Court: State failed to prove CHINS by preponderance; dismissal affirmed
Whether the child’s out‑of‑court statements must be credited	Statements to DCF and relatives about baggies and needles corroborate exposure and parental drug use	Statements are hearsay, vague, and susceptible to innocent explanations (e.g., tobacco)	Court may consider unobjected‑to hearsay but may assign it minimal weight; trial court permissibly gave it little weight
Adequacy of trial‑court findings (Krupp issue)	Trial court recited testimony without credibility analysis or clear findings on material evidence; remand required	Findings were minimally sufficient and the court reasonably credited parents	Majority: findings supported dismissal though better practice would be to address evidence; Dissent: trial court’s recitation insufficient and remand warranted
Standard of appellate review / deference to family court	Deference inappropriate if trial court failed to weigh evidence and make findings	Appellate court should defer to family court’s credibility and weight determinations	Court applied deferential review and affirmed because credible evidence supported findings; dissent argued deferential review inapplicable without proper findings

Key Cases Cited

In re M.L., 993 A.2d 400 (Vt. 2010) (standard for appellate review of family‑court findings in CHINS appeals)
In re A.F., 624 A.2d 867 (Vt. 1993) (trial court has discretion to weigh evidence and determine credibility)
Krupp v. Krupp, 236 A.2d 653 (Vt. 1967) (recitation of testimony alone is not a finding; court must sift evidence and state facts in its own language)
Mandigo v. Mandigo, 266 A.2d 434 (Vt. 1970) (trial judges must weigh and sift evidence, not merely recite it)
In re M.C.P., 571 A.2d 627 (Vt. 1989) (family court may choose which testimony to believe)
City of Montpelier v. Town of Calais, 39 A.2d 350 (Vt. 1944) (weight of hearsay evidence is for the factfinder)
In re B.C., 203 A.3d 515 (Vt. 2018) (single isolated incident of parental substance use minimally probative of CHINS)
State v. Durenleau, 652 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1994) (circumstantial evidence must be more than mere suspicion)