Title: In re C.A.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_CA.90-476; 160 Vt. 503; 630 A.2d 1292


 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. 90-476


 In re C.A., J.A., & A.M.                     Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Family Court

                                              February Term, 1993


 George T. Costes, J.

 Charles Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   The mother of male minor C.A. and female minors J.A.,
 and A.M. appeals from an order of the family court transferring custody and
 guardianship of one child to the child's father and of two others to their
 grandmother.  We reverse and remand.
      The present proceedings were initiated after the mother married E.L. in
 1989.  E.L. was a convicted sex offender whose conditions of probation
 required that he "not initiate conduct with any minor female."  The mother
 was receiving public assistance at the time of the marriage and did not
 advise the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) that she had married.  DSW
 terminated her benefits, and, according to the mother, she was then
 "required to live in her vehicle and various motels."  Thereafter, the
 Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS) filed the present
                             
                               

 petition, based solely on the potential danger to the children from E.L.
 The family court found that the children were in need of care and
 supervision, concluding that:
              1. [E.L.] is a threat to this family.

              2. [The mother] still believes her husband is
         innocent of L & L.

              3. [E.L.] believes he doesn't have a problem and
         believes he needs no further treatment.

              4. [The mother] in this environment at this time is
         not in a position to protect her three very young
         children.

              5. [E.L.] at this time is extremely likely to re-
         offend, thus creating a danger to the female children.

      At the disposition hearing, the court transferred custody of A.M. to
 the child's father and of C.A. and J.A. to their maternal grandmother.  The
 present appeal followed.
      The mother contends that the trial court's disposition order was not
 supported by the findings and evidence, and that the court improperly
 transferred custody of A.M. to her natural father and C.A. and J.A. to
 their grandparents, because there was no finding of parental unfitness.
 Both points have merit.
      The findings in the disposition order reveal numerous shortcomings of
 the mother, including leaving her first infant unsupervised, failing to
 bond with and refusing to feed her second child, failing to maintain an
 appropriate home, and failing to acknowledge the dangers her new husband
 might pose to her children.  The court's conclusions, however, rely
 exclusively on the danger posed by the husband and omit any discussion of
 the mother's problems.  Moreover, the court does not state that the mother
 is unfit, and absent such a finding, it may not remove a child from the
                
                                

 parent's custody at the dispositional stage of a juvenile proceeding.  In re
 M.B., 147 Vt. 41, 45,