In re R.W. and N.W.
2011 Vt. LEXIS 140
| Vt. | 2011Background
- VT DCF sought termination of residual parental rights of mother and father regarding两 daughters R.W. and N.W., Sri Lankan nationals living in Vermont.
- Trial court terminated mother's rights, but lacked personal jurisdiction over father; DCF sought jurisdiction over father via status-based basis.
- Children resided in Vermont since 2003; DCF custody began in 2006 after CHINS proceedings due to abuse findings against mother’s household.
- Mother’s appeal challenged the use of a preponderance standard for stagnation and a deficient best-interests analysis; DCF cross-appealed on father.
- Court held status-based jurisdiction under UCCJA governs termination proceedings involving the child’s status, remanding for further proceedings on both parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for stagnation | Mother argues stagnation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Mother contends the court used a preponderance standard, which is erroneous. | Remanded for determinations under clear and convincing standards. |
| Best-interests rational basis | Mother asserts the best-interests analysis lacks rational basis for R.W. and N.W. | DCF maintains the permanency need justifies termination for both children. | Court’s best-interests analysis affirmed as rational to support permanency goals. |
| Jurisdiction to adjudicate father’s rights | DCF contends status-based jurisdiction applies because children are within Vermont's jurisdiction. | Father lacks minimum contacts; Vermont may still adjudicate under status-based grounds. | Vermont has status-based jurisdiction under UCCJA; exercise deemed reasonable and proper. |
| Remand procedures for father’s participation | Record lacks findings about father; termination should proceed if warranted. | Father should be allowed to participate and be heard before termination is decided. | Remand for hearing with due notice and appropriate participation methods; notify consulate as required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.W., 162 Vt. 287 (1994) (change of circumstances and stagnation standard for termination)
- In re J.R., 164 Vt. 267 (1995) (clear and convincing evidence required at both stages)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) (status jurisdiction discussed; due process limitations noted)
- May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953) (custody and status considerations in custody adjudications)
- In re Thomas J.R., 2003 WI 61 (2003) (status-based jurisdiction in termination and custody matters)
- In re Adoption of Copeland, 43 S.W.3d 483 (2000) (termination proceedings treated as custody proceeding under custody acts)