In re R.H., 14 A.3d 267

DCF included petitioner in the child protection registry after substantiating a finding that she placed her then-three-year-old daughter at substantial risk of harm by leaving her alone in a running van in freezing weather.
The registry process involves DCF investigation, substantiation, and a right to administrative review; substantiated records are confidential but may be disclosed to specific entities.
The administrative reviewer must determine whether the substantiation is accurate and reliable; DCF bears the burden of proof at the review.
The Board later reversed DCF’s substantiation, concluding that the incident was an isolated, non-recurrent event and that placement in the registry would serve no purpose given petitioner’s post-incident conduct.
Petitioner sought a fair hearing; the Board applied a gross negligence/reckless behavior standard and considered petitioner’s life circumstances after the incident.
DCF appealed, arguing the Board exceeded its authority and that collateral estoppel should bar relitigation based on a family court finding of severe neglect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Board review of DCF substantiation	Board should conduct de novo review and apply statutory standard.	Board defers to DCF findings and uses its own risk assessment framework.	Board exceeded its authority; de novo review with proper standard required; remand.
Proper standard for finding risk of harm	Use the single-egregious-act standard from DCF Policy No. 55.	Use the Board’s gross negligence/reckless behavior standard.	DCF's single-egregious-act standard governs substantiation; Board must apply it on remand.
Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion	Family court finding of severe neglect precludes challenging substantiation.	Different forums and standards justify estoppel.	Not precluded; different standards apply; petitioner may challenge substantiation.
Board’s reliance on post-incident circumstances	Post-incident conduct can be considered to determine risk of reoccurrence.	Post-incident conduct should not govern initial substantiation.	Board must not rely on post-incident factors; standard requires focus on the incident and statutory risk.

Bushey-Combs, 160 Vt. 326 (1993) (de novo Board review of DCF substantiation)
Rivard v. Roy, 124 Vt. 32 (1963) (gross negligence standard for risk of harm)
In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (2010) (defers to Board on substantiation; ensures correct legal standard)
K.G. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 171 Vt. 529 (2000) (review of Board conclusions; abuse/neglect standards)
Trepanier v. Getting Organized, Inc., 155 Vt. 259 (1990) (elements of issue preclusion analysis)
State v. Pollander, 167 Vt. 301 (1997) (criteria for preclusion in successive actions)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (abuse of discretion when ruling rests on erroneous law or fact)
Peterson v. Clark Leasing Corp., 451 F.2d 1291 (1971) (collateral estoppel requires identical issues and standards)