In re M.O., Juvenile, 131 A.3d 738

Newborn M.O. born Dec. 14, 2014; DCF filed CHINS petition and obtained emergency custody Dec. 17, 2014. Temporary custody transferred to DCF.
Prebirth: Nurse Family Partnership home visitor worked with mother; she noted mother’s engagement but had concerns about clutter, other home issues, and predicted parents would need substantial help after birth.
Hospital observations: hospital social worker and nursing notes documented mother’s difficulty performing basic infant care (required repeated prompting to check/change diaper, difficulty feeding/positioning, hesitancy holding the baby, sleeping through crying, expressed fear of being alone); mother reported inability to care for baby without assistance.
Father was present in record but less engaged prebirth; social worker could not fully assess father at hospital. Trial court cited housing and anger issues in its written order but relied primarily on the hospital social worker’s postpartum observations of mother.
Trial court adjudicated M.O. CHINS for the period Dec. 14–17, 2014. Father appealed, arguing findings were vague/speculative and insufficient to support a CHINS finding.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DCF’s Argument	Held
Whether the court’s findings support CHINS adjudication	Findings were vague/speculative; show only potential risk from parental “risk factors”	Findings and eyewitness hospital observations showed mother’s actual inability to care for infant without around‑the‑clock assistance	Affirmed: findings, read with record, support CHINS by preponderance
Whether potential risk (vs actual risk/harm) suffices for CHINS	A potential risk of harm is insufficient	CHINS can be based on risk shown by observed parenting deficits; actual harm not required	Affirmed: court relied on observed conduct showing real risk, not mere speculation
Whether decision rested on impermissible presumption about disability	Court presumed parents with disabilities cannot parent	Court based decision on observed parenting performance, not on disability per se	Affirmed: no impermissible presumption; decision tied to observed incapacity
Whether findings were adequate for appellate review	Findings too imprecise to permit review	Findings, read with testimony/notes, reasonably show what was decided and why	Affirmed: findings, though not optimal, were sufficient and supported by record

In re B.R., 97 A.3d 867 (Vt. 2014) (State must prove CHINS by preponderance; focus is child’s welfare)
In re L.M., 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014) (actual harm not required for CHINS adjudication)
In re D.D., 82 A.3d 1143 (Vt. 2013) (appellate review: findings stand unless clearly erroneous and legal conclusions follow from findings)
Molleur v. Molleur, 44 A.3d 763 (Vt. 2012) (findings need only be sufficient to show what was decided and why)
Seaway Shopping Ctr. Corp. v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 315 A.2d 483 (Vt. 1974) (read evidence in support of findings when reasonably possible)
First Vt. Bank & Trust Co. v. Vill. of Poultney, 349 A.2d 722 (Vt. 1975) (construe findings to support judgment when reasonable)
Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 752 A.2d 26 (Vt. 2000) (issues not raised below are not preserved for appeal)