Case Title: In re K.H.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89-469

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-05-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-469


In re K.H., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

                                             May Term, 1990


Stephen B. Martin, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O. Duane,
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellee

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   The mother of K.H. appeals from the juvenile court's
order terminating her parental rights and transferring legal custody and
guardianship of K.H. to the Commissioner of Social and Rehabilitation
Services (SRS) without limitation as to adoption.  We affirm.
     SRS has had legal custody of K.H. since December, 1985.  At that time,
the district court found both the mother, then aged seventeen, and her
eighteen-month-old child to be children in need of supervision (CHINS).  SRS
placed K.H. and the mother in the same foster home in order to keep the
family together while the mother learned parenting skills and found
employment.  The mother left the foster home upon turning eighteen.  K.H.,
however, remained in the care of the foster parents who seek to adopt the
child, now five years of age.
     The court conducted a dispositional review in May, 1987 and continued
SRS's custody of K.H.  In November, 1988 SRS filed a petition to terminate
the mother's parental rights, citing the mother's inability to resume
parental responsibilities within a reasonable time and K.H.'s need for
stability and permanence.  The court granted SRS's petition, and the mother
appealed.
     The mother argues that the court erred by not making findings on the
question of whether SRS made reasonable efforts to reunite mother and child
as required by 42 U.S.C. {{ 670-79.  We disagree.
     Congress made federal funds available for foster care and adoption
assistance under Title IV-E with passage of the Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AAA). 42 U.S.C. {{ 620-29, 670-79.  To qualify
for the funding it receives, SRS must follow the guidelines prescribed by
the AAA.  Section 671(a) provides in pertinent part:
         In order for a State to be eligible for payments . . .
         it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which  --

         . . . .

           (15) . . . provides that, in each case, reasonable
         efforts will be made (A) prior to the placement of a
         child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need
         for removal of the child from his home, and (B) to make
         it possible for the child to return to his home . . . .

     With the receipt of federal funds, the mother argues that the State has
undertaken a duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify separated children
with their natural parents, a duty which the federal government may
enforce (FN1) and which bestows corollary rights on private parties as well.  In
essence, the mother contends that the AAA creates an implied right of action
which she may assert in a state juvenile court proceeding, and upon which
the court must make findings.
     The mother primarily relies on In re Burns,