179 A.3d 754
Vt.2017Background
- Parents voluntarily relinquished parental rights in January 2017; the court entered a termination order.
- On February 9, 2017, both parents filed pro se Rule 60(b) motions to reopen, alleging the mother suffered a concussion in a car accident the day before relinquishment and that counsel had not represented them properly.
- At the Rule 60(b) hearing, parents appeared without their court-appointed attorneys (who were present). Parents asked for continuances and for appointed counsel to remain; appointed counsel moved to withdraw.
- The trial court denied appointment of counsel for the Rule 60(b) motion, reasoning there is no statutory right to appointed counsel at that post-judgment phase, and gave parents time to retain private counsel.
- A June 12 evidentiary hearing was scheduled; parents could not attend due to car trouble, asked to appear by phone, and the court denied telephonic appearance. The court dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion for failure to appear.
- Parents’ motions to reconsider were denied as untimely; they appealed arguing the trial court erred in refusing to appoint counsel and that the denial prejudiced their ability to litigate the Rule 60(b) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | State/Juveniles' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents were entitled to court-appointed counsel for a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a termination order | Statutory right to counsel in juvenile proceedings extends to subsequent proceedings arising from an order, including Rule 60(b); appointment was required | Trial court below: no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel at post-judgment / reopening stage | Court held parents were entitled to assigned counsel under 13 V.S.A. § 5232(3) for their Rule 60(b) motion |
| Whether denial of appointed counsel was harmless error | Denial prevented competent advocacy, preserved appeal rights, and affected ability to participate; thus prejudicial | Error was harmless because dismissal resulted from parents’ failure to appear, not lack of counsel | Court held the denial was prejudicial and not harmless; reversal required |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists despite procedural timing defects caused after the counsel denial | Parents argued procedural failings flowed from court’s denial of counsel and competent counsel would have preserved rights | State argued appeal should fail due to untimely filings and procedural defaults | Court asserted jurisdiction under equitable authority (4 V.S.A. § 2(b)) given unique circumstances and prejudice caused by denial of counsel |
| Relief required on reversal | Parents requested assignment of counsel and reconsideration of their Rule 60(b) motion | State urged that dismissal stands because parents missed hearing | Court reversed and remanded for appointment of counsel and a hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (recognizing parental custody as a liberty interest requiring due process analysis)
- In re S.C., 88 A.3d 1220 (Vt. 2014) (importance of appointed counsel in termination proceedings; limits on counsel withdrawal)
- In re A.W., A.3d 508 (Vt. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles applying plain language of juvenile-counsel statute)
- In re R.W., 39 A.3d 682 (Vt. 2011) (harmless error standard in termination cases)
- In re Babson, 107 A.3d 339 (Vt. 2014) (equitable exercise of appellate authority to protect appeal rights lost due to counsel error)
- In re Beach Props., 133 A.3d 854 (Vt. 2015) (timeliness of post-judgment motions and tolling of appeal period)
- In re A.D.T., 817 A.2d 20 (Vt. 2002) (invoking authority to review untimely appeal where counsel missed deadline)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard on prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel; cited regarding presumption of prejudice)