Case Title: In re B.C.

Citation: 169 Vt. 1, 726 A.2d 45

Docket Number: 98-341

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re B.C.  (98-341); 169 Vt. 1; 726 A.2d 45

[Filed 8-Jan-1999]

       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. 98-341

In re:  B.C.	                            Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
                                            Franklin Family Court

                                            November Term, 1998

Alden T. Bryan, J.

       Michael Rose, St. Albans, for Appellant Custodial Guardian.

       Charles S. Martin of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Appellant Mother.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Jody A. Racht
  and Martha E. Csala,  Assistant Attorneys General, Waterbury, for Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Mother and grandmother of four-year-old B.C. appeal the
  family court's  order terminating their parental rights.  They argue that
  the family court lacked jurisdiction over  the neglect and termination
  proceedings, and that the court's findings do not support the  termination
  order.  We affirm, concluding that the family court had jurisdiction to
  render the  termination order, and that the court's findings support the
  order.

       Mother was seventeen years old and a resident of Massachusetts when
  B.C. was born on  January 22, 1994.  During the fall of 1995, the
  Massachusetts Department of Social Services  (DSS) became involved with the
  family after it became apparent that B.C. was a "failure-to-thrive" baby. 
  Evaluations revealed that at age twenty-two months, B.C weighed only
  twenty-one  pounds, placing him in the fifth percentile for children that
  age.  Mother's chaotic life, her  inability to interact favorably with the
  child, and caloric deprivation were identified as the causes  of the
  child's condition.  B.C.'s condition initially improved but then regressed
  by the spring of  1996, at which time mother was homeless and caring for
  her new baby, who was born in the 

  

  fall of 1995.  On May 23, 1996, in a Massachusetts probate court
  proceeding, mother voluntarily  relinquished guardianship of B.C. to her
  mother, who had been living in Vermont.

       In July 1996, approximately six weeks after being appointed as B.C.'s
  guardian,  grandmother returned to Vermont with the child.  In the ensuing
  two months, B.C. and  grandmother lived either in her car or in one of
  several residences in the St. Alban's area.  One  day in early September,
  grandmother left B.C. with two girls she knew and then failed to pick the 
  child up later that day as planned.  The next day, the former foster mother
  of one of the girls  called the Department of Social and Rehabilitative
  Services (SRS), and an emergency petition was  filed alleging that B.C. was
  a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS).  Although B.C. was  nearly
  three years old at that time, the foster mother reported that he did not
  seem to be familiar  with solid food.  Apparently, his primary source of
  nourishment had been a nutritional  supplement.  The child's teeth were
  seriously decayed, and an examining physician concurred  with the prior
  failure-to-thrive diagnosis.

       B.C. remained with the foster mother.  In November 1996, the Franklin
  Family Court  found B.C. to be a child in need of care or supervision. 
  Mother came to Vermont that same  month to attend a court hearing and
  express her desire to have B.C. returned to her in  Massachusetts.  In
  December 1996, SRS requested that DSS perform a home study to assess 
  whether and under what circumstances B.C. could be safely returned to his
  mother in  Massachusetts.  Following the disposition hearing held in
  January and February 1997, the family  court placed B.C. in SRS custody and
  adopted SRS's plan to reunify B.C. with his mother or  grandmother
  conditioned upon completion of a number of services.

       After the Massachusetts home study was completed in April 1997, DSS
  refused to  recommend placement of B.C. with mother because she was living
  with her father, who was on  the Massachusetts registry for having
  physically and sexually abused her when she was a child.  Based on mother's
  refusal to leave her father's home and come to Vermont, and her failure to 
  follow through with visitations and case plan services, SRS filed a
  supplemental disposition 

  

  report in May 1997 recommending termination of parental rights (TPR).

       Mother moved to Vermont in June 1997, the same month that SRS filed
  its petition to  terminate her parental rights.  SRS offered mother
  services designed to allow her to develop a  relationship with B.C., and
  arranged liberal visitation between her and B.C., but she refused the 
  services and did not regularly take advantage of opportunities to visit
  B.C.  In March 1998, after  the family court rejected SRS's argument that
  the court's disposition order had terminated  grandmother's status as
  guardian of B.C., SRS filed a petition to terminate grandmother's parental 
  rights.  Grandmother responded by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of
  jurisdiction.  Mother  joined the motion, and the court denied it. 
  Following three days of hearings held in March and  April 1998, the court
  terminated mother's and grandmother's parental rights.  The court also 
  terminated the residual parental rights of the biological father, whose
  whereabouts were unknown  and who did not participate in the proceedings.

                                     I.

       We first examine appellants' challenge to the family court's
  jurisdiction.  The parties  acknowledge that CHINS and TPR proceedings are
  subject to the Uniform Child Custody  Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 15 V.S.A.
  §§ 1031-1051.  See In re A.L.H., 160 Vt. 410, 413,