126 A.3d 496
Vt.2015Background
- Three children (R.B., O.B., K.C.) were adjudicated CHINS in Aug 2012; temporary custody was placed with a relative (Kristin Hall) under a conditional custody order (CCO).
- DCF filed to terminate parents’ residual parental rights in Dec 2013; a two-day TPR hearing occurred in April 2014 and the court issued a TPR decision in Nov 2014.
- The court found mother suffered from Munchausen’s disorder and Munchausen-by-proxy, lacked insight, posed grave risk to children, and was unlikely to recover within a reasonable time.
- The court found both parents had not remedied longstanding neglect, lacked parenting skills, and could not resume caretaking within a reasonable time; it terminated mother’s rights to all three children and father’s rights to two children.
- Post-TPR proceedings involved contested custody transfers between DCF and Ms. Hall; ultimately the court returned the children to Ms. Hall’s conditional custody pending adoption efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination requires an available/permanent placement or transfer of residual rights to DCF to be valid | Mother: termination without a placement or transfer "without limitation as to adoption" leaves no one able to consent to adoption, so termination is ineffective | State/Children: termination focuses on parents’ fitness and best interests; availability of placement or transfer to DCF is not prerequisite; parents lack standing to challenge placement | Court: Availability of a permanent placement or transfer to DCF is not required for valid TPR; parents cannot challenge post-termination placement here |
| Authority to transfer custody to a relative after TPR (vs. only to DCF) | Parents: court lacked authority to leave custody with relative without providing permanency language | Parents reference statutory scheme limiting disposition options | Court: Consistent with In re J.G., court may transfer custody to a relative/other person with significant relationship and impose conditions; statutory list is not exclusive |
| Notice requirement for an additional ("third day") TPR hearing under In re M.T. | Parents: they lacked direct notice of the post-judgment hearing and were deprived of opportunity to be heard on placement and conditions (including parent-child contact) | State: the January hearing was a motion hearing, not an additional day of the TPR hearing; parents had notice of motions; any notice error was harmless | Court: M.T. direct-notice rule applies only to TPR hearing days; no reversible error; any notice defect was harmless and parents had no residual visitation rights after TPR |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings re: parents’ inability to resume duties were clearly erroneous | Father: his shortcomings were due to external factors (caregiving for mother, Ms. Hall’s interference); he now has housing and willingness to parent | State: parents remained unable/unwilling to provide safe care, father lacked consistent contact and parenting skills; father responsible for failures | Court: Findings supported by record; no clear error; termination was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.F., 194 Vt. 64, 72 A.3d 908 (Vt. 2018) (TPR validity does not depend on existence of permanent placement)
- In re J.G., 188 Vt. 562, 2 A.3d 817 (Vt. 2010) (court may transfer custody to a relative/fit caretaker after TPR; statutory list of disposition options not exclusive)
- In re S.B., 174 Vt. 427, 800 A.2d 476 (Vt. 2002) (TPR proceedings are distinct from custody cases; termination can occur without adoption/foster placement availability)
- In re M.T., 180 Vt. 643, 912 A.2d 456 (Vt. 2006) (requirement of direct notice for additional TPR hearing days)
- In re R.W., 191 Vt. 108, 39 A.3d 682 (Vt. 2011) (harmless-error analysis applies in TPR appeals)
- In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287, 648 A.2d 652 (Vt. 1994) (two-step TPR analysis: substantial change and best interests)