2026 VT 6
Vt.2026Background
- Grandmother, O.R.G.'s court-appointed guardian, filed petitions to adopt the child and later to terminate the parents' rights. 1
- The probate division rejected the parents' attempted consents because they did not satisfy statutory acknowledgment and content requirements. 2
- Grandmother could not locate the parents for service, though she had intermittent contact with mother and brief contact with father. 3
- Grandmother moved to serve the petitions by publication under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 4(g). 4
- The probate division denied publication service, concluding § 3-403(a) required personal service and that publication was unavailable. 5
- The Supreme Court accepted interlocutory appeal to decide whether § 3-403(a) bars service by publication. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3-403(a) allow service by publication? 7 | Grandmother argued publication was permitted after due diligence failed. | The probate division held personal service was required and publication barred. | Yes; § 3-403(a) permits publication when due diligence fails. 8 |
| What does "personally served in accordance with the Vermont Rules" mean? 9 | Grandmother said Rule 4's personal-service category included publication if due diligence failed. | The probate division said only in-hand or home-delivery service counted as personal service. | The phrase is ambiguous and incorporates Rule 4's then-existing personal-service framework. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Bradley, 180 Vt. 383, 910 A.2d 893 (Vt. 2006) (de novo review of statutory interpretation 11)
- Weitz v. Weitz, 210 Vt. 248, 213 A.3d 1102 (Vt. 2019) (interpretation of procedural rules reviewed de novo 12)
- Nelson v. Russo, 184 Vt. 550, 956 A.2d 1117 (Vt. 2008) (civil rules construed liberally to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations 13)
- State v. Amidon, 185 Vt. 1, 967 A.2d 1126 (Vt. 2008) (courts begin with a rule's plain language and purpose 14)
- Thurber v. Thurber, 218 Vt. 457, 310 A.3d 877 (Vt. 2023) (interpretation considers reason, spirit, and consequences 15)
- State v. Forcier, 162 Vt. 71, 643 A.2d 1200 (Vt. 1994) (avoid absurd or unreasonable interpretations 16)
- State v. Brunner, 196 Vt. 571, 99 A.3d 1019 (Vt. 2014) (ambiguous language is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation 17)
- In re Investigation to Rev. Avoided Costs that Serve as Prices for Standard-Offer Program in 2020, 215 Vt. 247, 261 A.3d 656 (Vt. 2021) (ambiguous statutes allow resort to legislative history and purpose 18)
- State v. Racine, 133 Vt. 111, 329 A.2d 651 (Vt. 1974) (courts presume statutory language is inserted advisedly 19)
- Doe v. Camacho, 2024 VT 72, 329 A.3d 156 (Vt. 2024) (primary goal is to give effect to legislative intent 20)
- In re K.M.M., 189 Vt. 372, 22 A.3d 423 (Vt. 2011) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest 21)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents' custody and control rights are fundamental liberty interests 22)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (publication may be a customary substitute when better notice is not practicable 23)
- Brady v. Brauer, 148 Vt. 40, 529 A.2d 159 (Vt. 1987) (publication is constitutional when reasonably calculated to provide notice 24)