Case Title: In re E.B.

Citation: 162 Vt. 229, 647 A.2d 1001

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_EB.92-551; 162 Vt. 229; 647 A.2d 1001

[Opinion Filed February 28, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied June 23, 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.


                                 No. 92-551


 In re E.B. & M.B., Juveniles                 Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Franklin Family Court

                                              December Term, 1993


 Ronald F. Kilburn, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Alexandra N. Thayer,
   Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee SRS

 Daniel Albert, Public Defender, St. Albans, for appellee juveniles E.B. and
   M.B.

 Michael Rose, St. Albans, for appellant C.B.


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Appellant C.B. appeals the termination of parental rights
 and responsibilities for his children M.B. and E.B.  We affirm.
      This case was consolidated with In re M.B., No. 90-444 (Vt., filed
 Sept. 12, 1990), in which both parents appealed the trial court's order
 transferring custody and guardianship of the children to the Department of
 Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) after a finding that they were
 FN1)  While that appeal was
 pending, SRS petitioned for termination of residual parental rights and

 

 responsibilities, and the trial court granted the petition on October 30,
 1992.  Custody and guardianship over M.B. and E.B. were transferred to SRS
 without limitation as to adoption.  The mother, M.R., has not appealed the
 termination order.  Therefore, her appeal in No. 90-444 of the CHINS
 disposition order is moot.  See In re H.A., 148 Vt. 106, 108,