Case Title: In re C.S.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-03-01T00:00:00Z

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-464


 In re C.S., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Rutland Family Court

                                              March Term, 1992


 Frank G. Mahady, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, Michael O. Duane and
   Alexandra N. Thayer, Assistant Attorneys General, Waterbury, and James
   Mongeon, Rutland County State's Attorney, and Marc D. Brierre, Deputy
   State's Attorney, Rutland, for appellants

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and William Nelson, Appellate Attorney, for
   appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.     The State appeals an order of the Rutland Family Court
 that required the Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS)
 to retain custody of C.S. to the age of twenty-one.  We affirm.
      At seventeen years of age, C.S. was adjudicated delinquent, committed
 to SRS custody and placed at the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center.
 His case plan provided that he would remain there until his eighteenth
 birthday and then be discharged from custody.  Prior to turning eighteen,
 C.S. petitioned the family court to continue jurisdiction over him and order
 his custody with SRS to continue until his twenty-first birthday.  The
 family court granted the request.  The State bases its appeal on the claim
 that the family court was without authority to order SRS custody to
 continue past the minority of the child.
      Section 5504(b) of Title 33 allows the family court to retain
 jurisdiction over a delinquent child up to the child's twenty-first birthday
 in accordance with the procedure set out in { 5504(c) (hearing on continued
 jurisdiction during three months preceding child's eighteenth birthday).
 The State, however, relies on 33 V.S.A. { 5531(a), which provides that an
 order transferring legal custody of a child to an individual, agency or
 institution shall not remain in force "beyond the minority of the child."
 C.S. agrees that the plain meaning of this statute deprives the court of
 authority to order the relief granted in this case because minority ends at
 age eighteen.  He argues, however, that the "minority" language was a
 mistake and that the Legislature intended instead that twenty-one be the
 operative age in { 5531(a).
      Our analysis begins with the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child
 Welfare Act, passed in 1980, which requires states to implement periodic
 case reviews for children in custody in order to maintain eligibility for
 federal funding.  42 U.S.C. {{ 671(a)(16), 675(5).  Before Congress passed
 this law, Vermont's juvenile statutes mandated review of dispositional
 orders transferring custody or guardianship every two years.  At that time,
 { 658(a) of Title 33, (now { 5531(a)), provided:
           Unless otherwise specified therein an order under the
           authority of this chapter transferring legal custody,
           or guardianship over the person or residual parental
           rights and responsibilities of a child to an individual,
           agency, or institution shall be for an indeterminate
           period, and provided further that, every order trans-
           ferring legal custody or guardianship over the person
           shall be reviewed two years from the date entered and
           each two years thereafter.  In no event shall any such
           order remain in force or effect beyond the minority of
           the child.

 (Emphasis added.)

      In 1981, the Legislature began a process to amend { 658(a) to maintain
 eligibility for federal funding.  A bill was prepared to reflect a shorter
 period of review, as an initial measure, so that the underlined language
 would read "one and one-half years."  Hearings on H. 321 Before the House
 Judiciary Committee (February 24, 1981). Designated H. 321, the bill was
 referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where various hearings on its
 purpose and effect took place.  H. 321 was then referred to the House Com-
 mittee on Appropriations, House Jour. 218 (March 4, 1981), and on May 5,
 1981 the Legislature adjourned without taking further action on it.
      Ten days later, on May 15, 1981, two juveniles, aged 16 and 15,
 attacked two girls in Essex Junction, murdering one of them.  See State v.
 Hamlin, 146 Vt. 97, 99-100,