In re M.G. and K.G., 13 A.3d 1084

DCF determined petitioners placed their children at risk of harm by establishing a clandestine drug laboratory in the basement after a 2007 raid.
Children were ages one and three at the time; DCF placed petitioners in the child-abuse-and-neglect registry.
Petitioners sought administrative review; reviewer upheld DCF’s substantiation based on policy and the perceived risk of harm from methamphetamine production.
Hearing officer did not issue findings of fact, instead reciting DCF's proposed facts and concluding there was no proven risk of harm.
Board adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations verbatim, without making independent findings of fact.
Court held the Board’s failure to issue written findings of fact requires reversal and remand for proper factual determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Board err by failing to issue written findings of fact?	DCF: Board must make its own factual findings and base its order on them.	Petitioners: Board's adoption of findings was sufficient; no independent findings required.	Yes; Board failed to issue proper findings and must remand.
Whether there were sufficient findings to determine if a clandestine drug lab existed and if materials to make meth were present.	Evidence showed presence of chemicals and policies supporting risk of harm.	No conclusive proof that a lab existed or that ingredients were intended for manufacture.	Remand to develop essential factual findings on lab status and materials.

In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Inc., 2007 VT 102 (VT, 2007) (reiterating that a mere recitation of evidence cannot substitute for findings)
Krupp v. Krupp, 126 Vt. 511 (Vt., 1967) (recitation of evidence must be translated into actual findings)
In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (VT, 2010) (mere recital of testimony not equivalent to findings of fact)
In re R.H., 2010 VT 95 (VT, 2010) (DCF interpretations bind unless clearly erroneous)