Case Title: In re A.V., S.T., A.C. & E.V.

Citation: 176 Vt. 568, 2003 VT 113, 844 A.2d 739

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re A.V., S.T., A.C. & E.V. (2003-301); 176 Vt. 568; 844 A.2d 739

2003 VT 113

[Filed 19-Dec-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 113

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-301

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2003

  In re A.V., S.T., A.C. and 	      }	    APPEALED FROM:
  E.V., Juveniles                     }
                                      }
                                      }
      	                              }	    Bennington Family Court
                                      }	
                                      }	    DOCKET NO. 154/155/156/157-9-02 Bnjv

                                            Trial Judge: Ellen H. Maloney

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The parents of four juveniles - A.V., born in March 1987;
  S.T., born in May 1988; A.C., born in July 1991; and E.V., born in February
  1994 - appeal the family court's adjudication of the juveniles as children
  in need of care and supervision (CHINS) based on educational neglect and
  truancy.  The juveniles, through their appointed counsel, join the State in
  opposing the parents' appeal.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The three oldest children attended public school during the
  1998-1999 school year after mother's application for home school enrollment
  was rejected because of her failure to provide for the children's special
  needs.  The children were partially home-schooled during the 1999-2000
  school year, with the public school providing special education services to
  A.V. and A.C. and additional instruction in reading, math, and language
  arts to the three oldest children.  In response to mother's home schooling
  notice of enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year, the Department of
  Education informed mother that her plan was inadequate and set a hearing
  date before a hearing officer.  See 16 V.S.A. § 166b(e) (commissioner may
  call hearing if she or he has information that creates significant doubt
  about whether proposed home study program can or will provide minimum
  course of study for student who has not yet enrolled).  In November 2001, a
  hearing officer took evidence and concluded that mother (1) had not filed
  progress assessments with respect to her four children; (2) had failed to
  present a curriculum adapted for her special needs children; and (3) had
  failed to show that her proposal would provide even a minimal level of
  study.  Consequently, mother's home schooling program was disallowed for
  both the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school years.  See In re S.M., 2003 VT 41, 
  11,