Case Title: E.J.R. v. Young

Citation: 162 Vt. 219, 646 A.2d 1284

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
EJR_V_YOUNG.93-104; 162 Vt. 219; 646 A.2d 1284

[Opinion Filed May 20, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied June 17, 1994]

 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.


                            Nos. 93-061 & 93-104


 E.J.R.                                       Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Chittenden Superior Court

 William B. Young, Commissioner, SRS          March Term, 1993



 In re J.R.                                   On Appeal from
                                              Franklin Family Court

                                              March Term, 1993

 David A. Jenkins, J. (CHINS proceeding)

 Matthew I. Katz, J. (habeas corpus)

 Michael Rose, St. Albans, for appellant mother

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for appellant father

 Howard W. Stalnaker, Franklin County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans,
   Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Alexandra N. Thayer,
   Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   E.J.R., the father, and C.R., the mother, appeal orders
 of the superior and family courts concerning custody of their daughter, J.R.
 First, they challenge the family court orders finding that J.R. is a child
 in need of care or supervision (CHINS) and granting custody to the
 Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS).  Second, the
 parents contend that the superior court erroneously denied their habeas

 

 corpus petition seeking release of J.R. to their custody.  We affirm the
 habeas corpus and CHINS orders, and remand for further findings on the issue
 of disposition.
      With the exception of two findings, the parents concede the extensive
 recitation of facts contained in the affidavit of an SRS social worker,
 which details a violent and troubled family history.  E.J.R. is the father
 of five children by two women; C.R. is mother to three of them, including
 J.R.  Hearings to terminate parental rights as to the first four children
 were concluded on October 23, 1992.  J.R. was born on November 17, 1992, and
 on the same day the State petitioned to have her adjudged a CHINS.  Parental
 rights were thereafter terminated as to the first four children.
      An emergency detention hearing was held after the filing of the CHINS
 petition, and custody of J.R. was transferred to SRS.  At the detention
 hearing, counsel for the father moved to dismiss, based on the fact that the
 allegations of child abuse contained in the petition related to other
 children of the parties, and not to J.R.  The same argument was raised at
 virtually every stage of the proceedings thereafter, and was rejected by the
 court each time.
      The record shows that since 1987, J.R.'s siblings suffered extensive
 physical and emotional abuse, including a fractured skull, a chipped tooth,
 numerous unexplained bruises, weight loss, and several hospitalizations.  In
 February 1992, the father threw a dinner plate at his two-year-old child in
 a fit of rage, resulting in a deep cut five to eight centimeters long on the
 child's forehead and nose.  The father also abused both mothers physically
 and emotionally.  C.R. contributed to the abuse and neglect of the
 children, and failed to protect them from the father.  From 1987 to the

 

 filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, the family was offered
 extensive services, but participation and cooperation with the service
 providers was sporadic, inconsistent, and almost always terminated by the
 parents.  Neither E.J.R. nor C.R. demonstrated an ability to parent or care
 for the children adequately.  According to a family evaluation performed in
 April 1992, both parents lacked insight into their problems, and neither
 demonstrated any motivation to participate in treatment.
      In December 1992, while awaiting the CHINS merits hearing in family
 court, the father petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in superior court.
 The mother joined in the petition as an intervenor.  The petition alleged
 that the commissioner of SRS had no authority to exercise custody over J.R.,
 because there was no evidence that the child had been neglected or abused.
 The superior court disagreed and dismissed the petition.  The court found
 that the petition failed to meet the standards for invoking habeas relief in
 a child custody situation, that the parents had failed to allege that
 returning J.R. to them would be in the child's best interest, and that the
 family court had properly exercised exclusive jurisdiction over the CHINS
 case.  See 33 V.S.A. { 5503(a).
      On December 18, 1992, a CHINS merits hearing was held in the family
 court.  The parties stipulated to all but two of the allegations set out in
 the SRS affidavit.  Though executed in the context of the merits hearing,
 the stipulation did not limit use of the facts to the merits portion of the
 CHINS proceedings.  Based on this stipulation and evidence heard at the
 hearing, the court concluded that J.R. was
         without proper parental care necessary for her well-
         being because the parents do not have the necessary
         desire, skills, attitude, traits and other qualities to
         adequately care for and protect the child.

 

              The facts are overwhelming that the parents do not
         now have the ability to care for, supervise and provide
         protection for this child based upon the stipulated
         facts.

      At the subsequent disposition hearing, the SRS disposition report was
 entered into evidence in its entirety, and the parents offered no evidence.
 The court issued an order granting custody of J.R. to the SRS commissioner
 and approving the SRS disposition plan.  The parties did not propose or
 request findings, and the court did not issue any despite its stated
 intention to do so.  The parents appealed the CHINS merits and disposition
 orders, and the dismissal of the habeas petition; the appeals were
 consolidated.
                                     I.
      The CHINS petition was filed the day J.R. was born, and she was removed
 from her parents almost immediately.  The parents contend that the absence
 of allegations or proof that they harmed J.R. herself must prevent the
 family court from declaring the child a CHINS.  First, the parents argue
 that the lack of such proof deprives the court of jurisdiction, but the law
 says otherwise.  Under 33 V.S.A. { 5503(a), the family court has "exclusive
 jurisdiction over all proceedings concerning any child who is or who is
 alleged to be . . . a child in need of care or supervision . . . ."(FN1)
 (Emphasis added.)  The statute clearly empowers the family court to hear the
 CHINS petition, regardless of its merit.  See Howe v. Lisbon Sav. Bank &
 Trust Co., 111 Vt. 201, 207, 14 A.2d 3, 5 (1940) (jurisdiction defined as
 legal power to hear or determine a cause).  Nothing in the record even

 

 remotely suggests a problem or defect in the family court's jurisdiction,
 and therefore the parents' jurisdictional argument fails.
      Essentially, the parents dispute the merits of the petition, which they
 believe cannot succeed absent evidence of actual harm inflicted upon J.R.  A
 CHINS action, however, does not depend on allegations of willful acts by a
 parent.  As we stated in In re Rathburn, 128 Vt. 429, 435,