Case Title: In re A.O.

Citation: 161 Vt. 302, 640 A.2d 537

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_AO.92-301; 161 Vt. 302; 640 A.2d 537

[Filed 28-Jan-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. 92-301


 In re A.O., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Franklin Family Court

                                              October Term, 1993



 Edward J. Cashman, J.

 E. M. Allen, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
    Montpelier, for appellant father

 James A. Hughes, Franklin County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for
    appellee State of Vermont

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for appellee juvenile



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   A.O.'s father, J.O., appeals from a family court order
 adjudging A.O. to be a child in need of care and supervision (CHINS) and
 placing her in the custody of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
 Services (SRS).  J.O. argues that (1) the evidence before the court was
 insufficient to establish that the child was CHINS at the time SRS filed its
 petition, (2) his due process right to notice was violated by the court's
 finding that A.O. was CHINS on a theory not included in the petition, (3)
 the court erred in stating that it lacked power to set a fixed limit to the
 time A.O. would remain in SRS custody, and (4) the court made inadequate
 findings in support of its disposition order.  We affirm.
                                     I.
      A.O. was born on December 25, 1991.  On February 7, 1992, her mother
 took her to the doctor because the child was spitting up and had a per-
 sistent cold.  The doctor found that A.O. had lost weight and decided to
 hospitalize her for a "failure to thrive."  The doctor was also concerned
 about a premature closing of A.O.'s fontanel, or "soft spot" in the skull,
 but this did not turn out to be a serious problem.  On February 10, 1992,
 the State filed a CHINS petition with an affidavit by a social worker
 stating the following:  A.O. was hospitalized for failure to thrive; A.O.'s
 mother, S.P., was being evicted from her apartment and had not received food
 stamps for February; a violent incident between the parents in January had
 caused minor injury to the child and brought on a seizure in the mother;
 J.O. was incarcerated as a result of the incident; and S.P. was only vaguely
 aware of how to care for the infant.  The family court issued a detention
 order transferring custody of A.O. to SRS.  Following a merits hearing, the
 court concluded that A.O. was in need of care and supervision, basing its
 conclusion on evidence of the violent incident in January 1992 and on the
 mother's inability to care properly for A.O., which had led to the child's
 weight loss and hospitalization.
                                     II.
      J.O. contends that the evidence presented at the merits hearing was
 insufficient to adjudge A.O. a CHINS.  See In re M.B., 158 Vt. 63, 70, 605 A.2d 515, 519 (1992) (State must establish that child is CHINS by preponder-
 ance of evidence).  If the court's findings in a CHINS case are supported by
 credible evidence, we will leave them undisturbed.  Id.
      J.O. argues that A.O.'s mother took the child to the hospital, followed
 the doctor's advice, and showed a willingness to accept services and
 training to improve her ability to care for A.O.  Despite these positive
 indications, however, two nurses and a doctor testified that the mother
 lacked necessary skills for feeding, clothing and caring for A.O.  There was
 evidence that physical abuse of the mother by J.O. when he was drinking
 adversely affected the mother's ability to care for the child.  The court
 found that A.O.'s failure to thrive was serious and nurturing by her mother
 inadequate.  The court's observations that the mother was being responsible
 and doing all within her power to cooperate and care for the child do not
 undercut the court's CHINS determination, as J.O. asserts, for the court may
 take note of contradictory evidence.  See Highgate Assocs. v. Merryfield,
 157 Vt. 313, 315, 597 A.2d. 1280, 1281 (1991) ("A finding will not be
 disturbed merely because it is contradicted by substantial evidence; rather,
 an appellant must show there is no credible evidence to support the
 finding.").  Credible evidence supported the court's determination that A.O.
 was a CHINS.
      J.O. also argues that evidence of the domestic violence on January 22,
 1992 was irrelevant to a determination that A.O. was CHINS as of February
 10, the date of the petition.  On January 22, S.P. called the police and
 told them J.O. had choked her and locked himself in the family's apartment
 with A.O.  The police arrived and asked J.O. to open the door.  When he
 refused to do so and threatened to harm the child if they forced the door
 open, the police told him to stand back and knocked the door down.  There
 was a struggle for the baby and the police finally took her from J.O.  When
 the father objected to the police officer's testimony on grounds of rele-
 vance, the court ruled that the testimony would be allowed.  At the end of
 the merits hearing, the court found that "the episode of violence was
 threatening to the child's life" and that J.O.'s alcohol abuse and physical
 abuse had a negative impact on both mother and child.  The evidence was
 clearly relevant to whether A.O. was CHINS and was properly admitted by the
 court.
                                    III.
      J.O. next contends that his due process right to notice was violated
 because the court found A.O. a CHINS as to him under 33 V.S.A. {
 5502(a)(12)(A) (abuse or abandonment), whereas the affidavit accompanying
 the CHINS petition alleged only that the child was CHINS under {
 5502(a)(12)(B) (lack of proper parental care).
      The due process rights of the parents in a juvenile proceeding "must be
 stringently observed."  In re R.M., 150 Vt. 59, 70,