In re M.L., Juvenile, 186 A.3d 618

Background

Thirteen-year-old M.L., with significant mental-health issues, engaged in self-harm and sexualized behavior and was charged with two delinquency offenses; she threatened suicide when her electronic device was withheld during a police sexual-assault investigation.
Mother repeatedly sought inpatient psychiatric care: M.L. was evaluated and admitted to Northwest Family Institute (NFI), later to UVMMC emergency, and then to the Brattleboro Retreat; mother indicated M.L. could not safely return home and helped arrange these placements.
Clinicians recommended long-term residential treatment; Brattleboro Retreat staff indicated Department involvement would be necessary to secure residential placement through State resources.
DCF filed a CHINS petition under 33 V.S.A. § 5102(3)(C) alleging M.L. was “without or beyond the control” of mother (CHINS-C); family court adjudicated M.L. CHINS-C and placed her in DCF custody.
On appeal, mother argued she had effectively arranged appropriate care and that M.L. was not beyond her control when the petition was filed; the Supreme Court reversed the CHINS-C adjudication.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a child in residential treatment is "without or beyond the control" of a parent (CHINS-C) at time of petition	State: M.L.’s severe behaviors and mother’s inability to manage care at home rendered M.L. beyond mother’s control and justified CHINS-C intervention	Mother: She had secured and maintained appropriate inpatient care and was actively seeking long-term placement, thus retaining control over M.L.’s care	Reversed: A child safely placed in residential treatment by a parent is not CHINS-C solely because the child cannot be managed at home; focus is on whether child was beyond parental control at filing time
Relevance of timing and prospective treatment access to CHINS-C determination	State: Urgent need to obtain long-term placement justified DCF custody to pursue options	Mother: Timing did not show imminent loss of control; mother was not going to remove M.L. from treatment	Court: Court must evaluate circumstances at filing; opening State-funded treatment options is not a proper basis for CHINS-C finding
Whether parental intent/effort suffices to avoid CHINS-C	State: Parent’s inability to manage at home indicates lack of control despite efforts	Mother: Her actions in arranging and maintaining inpatient care demonstrate exercise of parental authority	Court: Inquiry is whether child is protected, not whether parent intended well; here child was protected by mother’s arrangements
Proper statutory vehicle for claims about inadequate medical planning	State: Used CHINS-C petition	Mother: If claim is parental medical neglect, State should have used CHINS-B	Court: If issue is medical neglect/planning, State should have alleged CHINS-B; CHINS-C cannot be used to advance a medical-neglect theory

Key Cases Cited

In re B.B., 155 Vt. 365, 584 A.2d 1126 (1990) (refused to uphold CHINS finding where child’s refusal to return home followed permissioned stay)
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, 194 Vt. 508, 82 A.3d 1143 (2013) (affirmed CHINS on parental medical-neglect theory where parents failed to follow prescribed treatment)
In re D.T., 170 Vt. 148, 743 A.2d 1077 (1999) (merits inquiry focuses on child’s status at time of petition)
In re M.M., 2015 VT 122, 200 Vt. 540, 133 A.3d 379 (2015) (emphasizes timing of circumstances for CHINS determination)
In re J.T.S., 169 Vt. 620, 733 A.2d 86 (1999) (affirming State custody where home placement would interrupt necessary treatment)
In re N.H., 135 Vt. 230, 373 A.2d 851 (1977) (state must produce sufficient evidence before interfering with parental rights)