Case Title: In re M.B.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-272



In re M.B. and E.B., Juveniles               Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

                                             October Term, 1991



George T. Costes, J.

Howard E. Van Benthuysen, Franklin County State's Attorney, JoAnn Gross,
  Deputy State's Attorney, and Diane C. Wheeler, Law Clerk (On the Brief),
  St. Albans, for plaintiff-appellee

Robert Andres, Burlington, for defendant-appellant

Daniel M. Albert, Public Defender, St. Albans, for defendants-appellees



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


     Gibson, J.   M.R. appeals the juvenile court's finding that two of her
children, M.B. and E.B., are in need of care or supervision (CHINS).  33
V.S.A. { 5502(a)(12)(B).  She presents ten arguments, which can be
condensed as follows: (1) she was not given adequate notice of the claims
supporting the CHINS petition, (2) the court violated time limits imposed by
the governing statutes, (3) the court erroneously admitted a variety of
hearsay declarations, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a
finding that either child is in need of care or supervision.  We affirm,
rejecting additional claims of error without discussion as meritless.
                                    I.
     The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) took M.B.
and E.B. into temporary custody and placed them with their father in April
1989, when they were three and four years old, respectively.  SRS acted in
response to M.B.'s complaint to her stepmother and father that she had been
sexually abused by a boarder in the apartment where she lived with her
mother and sisters.  The boarder allegedly had fondled M.B. and inserted his
finger into her vagina.  SRS and other social service agencies had had
extensive interaction with M.R. over prior years.  Two social workers
testified that M.R. had lived with her children in unclean housing that was
occasionally unheated or without hot water, and had splintered floors and
broken windows; that the children often were undressed or underdressed,
unsupervised, and unwashed; that M.R. was unable to keep other people from
entering and staying in her apartment; and that she generally failed to
follow through with efforts to improve her situation.
                                    II.
      M.R. first contends that the State did not give her adequate notice
of the underlying basis for its CHINS petition.  The State used a standard
form to initiate the proceeding, checking a box indicating that "[t]he child
is or may be a child in need of care or supervision based on the following
allegations."  Rather than recite allegations on the form, the State
attached and incorporated a thirty-seven-paragraph affidavit from a social
worker that indicated that the children had suffered from a lack of super-
vision for some period of time, that both children had suffered injuries
while in the mother's care, that M.R. had done little to reduce the risk of
injury to her children despite extensive assistance from public agencies,
that a recent claim of sexual abuse by one of the children was supported by
a pediatrician's finding of abrasions inside the child's vaginal opening,
and that M.R. was not able to protect her daughter.  M.R. claims the
affidavit was confusing, leaving her without notice of the exact nature of
the State's claims.
     Faced with challenges similar to M.R.'s, this Court has held that an
affidavit supporting a juvenile petition that plainly recites the substance
of the allegations satisfies the requirement of particularity so as to allow
the parties an adequate opportunity to respond.  In re R.M., 150 Vt. 59, 70,