Case Title: In re B.F.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-09-01T00:00:00Z

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.


                           Nos. 88-544 & 89-010


In re B.F., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
       and                                   District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

In re S.A., Juvenile                         September Term, 1989


George T. Costes, J. (88-544)
Michael S. Kupersmith, J. (89-010)

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Alexandra N. Thayer,
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellant

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and Robert Sheil, Juvenile
  Defender, Montpelier, for defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     ALLEN, C.J.   The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
(SRS) appeals from two juvenile court orders restraining it from trans-
porting juveniles in restraints.  SRS claims that the juvenile courts
exceeded their authority in promulgating the orders.  We agree and vacate
the orders.
     Based on a finding of delinquency, legal custody of S.A. was
transferred to SRS in 1986.  S.A. came before the juvenile court in June
1988 for review of the disposition order.  During the course of this review
action, which was continued several times, S.A. was placed at the Woodside
Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility.  A youth placed at Woodside is trans-
ported to and from court appearances in restraints.  The juvenile court,
upon resuming its dispositional review on November 2, 1988, provided in its
review order that SRS not transport S.A. with either leg-irons or hand-
cuffs.  SRS appeals from this order.
     B.F., originally in SRS custody as a child in need of care or
supervision, was found to be delinquent and was continued in SRS custody
pending disposition.  During the course of the disposition hearings, B.F.
was placed at Woodside and was transported to and from the courthouse in
restraints.  The juvenile court heard argument and took testimony regarding
the appropriateness and necessity of this manner of transport.  It subse-
quently issued a protective order pursuant to 33 V.S.A. { 5534 (FN1) prohibiting
SRS from using "leg irons, shackles or similar restraining devices when
transporting B.F. to and from court."  The court, conducting the inquiry
required by { 5534(2), found that the practice of using restraints was "most
harmful to the child's self-esteem.  The child himself testified that he
was humiliated by walking on the street and through the corridors of the
public court building in chains."  Further, the court found that "[g]iven
B.F.'s unfortunate history, and his apparently low self-esteem, the
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services' continuing use of chains
and restraints on this child is not only very harmful but will also tend to
defeat the execution of any therapeutic disposition to be made."  SRS
appeals from this protective order.
     Addressing the dispositional review order concerning S.A. first,
dictating the manner in which SRS was to transport S.A. was clearly beyond
the juvenile court's authority.  The juvenile court is a court of "special
and very limited statutory powers."  In re M.C.P., 153 Vt. 275, 302, 571 A.2d 627, 642 (1989); In re K.H., ___ Vt. ___, ___, 580 A.2d 48, 49 (1990).
In establishing juvenile procedures, the Legislature sought to achieve a
balance between the authority of the juvenile court and the authority of the
legal custodian.  In re G.F., 142 Vt. 273, 280,