Title: In re J.T.S.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re J.T.S. (99-063); 169 Vt. 620; 733 A.2d 86

[Opinion filed 08-Jun-1999]
[Motion for Reargument denied 26-Jul-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-063

                               MAY TERM, 1999

In re J.T.S.	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     	                               }	Windham Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 164-7-97Wmjv	

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Father appeals from a disposition decision that transferred custody of
  his son to the Commissioner  of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
  Services (SRS).  He claims that there was no  evidence that transferring
  custody was necessary to promote the best interests of his son.  The  State
  contends that the evidence was sufficient to support the decision, and the
  juvenile has joined  the State's brief.  We affirm.

       J.T.S. was taken into SRS custody in July 1997, and the parties
  subsequently stipulated to a  finding of CHINS because J.T.S. was beyond
  the control of his parents.  See 33 V.S.A. §  5502(a)(12)(C).  J.T.S. has
  been in residential treatment at the Baird Center since 1997.  The first 
  disposition order transferred custody to SRS because it found that
  residential treatment, as  opposed to placement with father, was "`most
  suited to the protection and physical, mental and  moral welfare of the
  child.'"  In re J.T.S., No. 98-315, slip op. at 2  (Vt. Nov. 12, 1998) 
  (quoting 33 V.S.A. § 5528).  Father appealed the disposition order.  He
  argued that protective  supervision would be more effective than SRS
  custody in providing the child with residential  treatment because the
  court may condition father's custody on placement at the Baird Center 
  whereas the court is not authorized to make conditions on SRS custody. 
  Because the disposition  order did not explain how the court selected among
  the disposition options under 33 V.S.A. §  5528, we remanded for the court
  to make further findings and to reconsider its disposition  transferring
  custody to SRS.  See id., slip op. at 3.

       On remand, the court made additional findings and explained how it
  selected among the  disposition options available.  See E.J.R. v. Young,
  162 Vt. 219, 225,