Title: In re A.L.H.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_ALH.93-270; 160 Vt. 410; 630 A.2d 1288


 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. 93-270


 In re A.L.H., Juvenile                       Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Windham Family Court

                                              June Term, 1993



 Robert Grussing III, J.

 Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney,
    Montpelier, for appellant

 Kathleen B. London, Windsor County Deputy State's Attorney, White River
  Junction, for state

 Kimberly B. Cheney of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for
    appellees



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.   Juvenile, an out-of-state resident attending school in
 Vermont, was placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Social and
 Rehabilitation Services (SRS) after disclosing that she had been sexually
 abused in past years by her father.  She appeals from the Windham Family
 Court's orders relinquishing jurisdiction to juvenile's home state, South
 Carolina, and vacating its previous temporary custody order.  We affirm the
 court's orders.
      Juvenile is a sixteen-year-old girl who lived with her parents in South
 Carolina before coming to Vermont in January 1993 to attend boarding
 school.  Approximately one month after she arrived in Vermont, she disclosed
 to school personnel that her father had sexually abused her from age seven
 to age fourteen, and that her mother had done nothing to protect her.  After
 talking with juvenile, SRS asked the state's attorney to file a petition
 alleging that juvenile was in need of care and supervision (CHINS).
      The family court issued an emergency order placing juvenile in the
 temporary custody of SRS.  On April 15, in response to the parents' motion
 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the court ruled that "the only basis
 upon which this court can exercise jurisdiction beyond issuing temporary
 protective orders is a declination by South Carolina to exercise juris-
 diction."  The court then continued the case for thirty days to allow South
 Carolina time to indicate its intention about exercising jurisdiction.
      In South Carolina, meanwhile, the Charleston County Department of
 Social Services (DSS) suspended its investigation because it wanted the case
 litigated in Vermont.  On May 6, 1993, the parents filed an action in South
 Carolina's family court against DSS, asking that court to assume juris-
 diction of the case.  DSS sought dismissal of the action, but on May 14, the
 court assumed jurisdiction, finding that South Carolina was the proper forum
 to hear the case.  On May 26, the court issued an order placing juvenile in
 the protective custody of the State of South Carolina to be transported to
 South Carolina for appropriate placement.
      That same day, in response to the South Carolina protective custody
 order, the Windham Family Court vacated its temporary custody order.  There-
 after, juvenile went to New Jersey for a few days before returning to
 Vermont.  Following a hearing under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, 33
 V.S.A. {{ 5701-5715, the Windham Family Court directed SRS to hold juvenile
 for a period not to exceed ninety days to allow the State of South Carolina
 to effect juvenile's return to that state.
      Meanwhile, DSS continues to oppose litigation of the merits in South
 Carolina.  DSS has indicated its intent to appeal the South Carolina family
 court's May 26 protective order, arguing that a protective services action
 must be brought by the local state agency, and that the family court had no
 jurisdiction to order the agency to take juvenile into custody and file a
 child protection action.  Despite its continuing objection, DSS agreed to
 transport juvenile to South Carolina and place her in protective custody in
 view of the South Carolina family court's directive that would allow
 juvenile's parents to transport her to South Carolina.(FN1) DSS contends, and
 juvenile argues on appeal, that "[t]here is no protective services action
 pending in the Courts of South Carolina concerning [juvenile]."
      We granted juvenile a stay of the Windham Family Court's order
 permitting South Carolina social services personnel to remove juvenile from
 SRS custody.  On appeal, juvenile argues that custody should remain with SRS
 because the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 15 V.S.A. {{
 1031-1051, gives Vermont courts jurisdiction to determine the merits of the
 case.  We conclude, however, that unless South Carolina declines
 jurisdiction, Vermont has no jurisdiction to make a permanent custody
 determination in this matter.
      CHINS proceedings are subject to the UCCJA.  See id. { 1031(3)
 ("custody proceeding" includes child neglect and dependency proceedings).
 Vermont has jurisdiction under the UCCJA if (1) Vermont is the "home state"
 of the child; (2) adjudication in Vermont is in the child's best interest
 because the child and a parent or contestant have substantial connections to
 the state or because there is substantial evidence available in the state
 concerning the child's present or future care; (3) the child is present in
 the state and needs emergency protection; or (4) no other state would have
 jurisdiction under standards similar to (1), (2) and (3), or another state
 has declined jurisdiction because it is more appropriate for this state to
 determine custody and it is in the best interest of the child for that to
 occur.  15 V.S.A. { 1032(a).
      With respect to the first criterion, juvenile does not contend that
 Vermont has ever been her "home state."  See 15 V.S.A. { 1032(a)(1).
 Secondly, we agree with the trial court that the child's connections to the
 state are insufficient to allow "best interest" jurisdiction under {
 1032(a)(2).(FN2) Even if we were to assume that attending boarding school for
 a short period constituted a significant connection to the state, no other
 "contestant" has connections to the state.  SRS is not "a person, including
 a parent, who claims a right to custody or visitation rights with respect to
 a child."  See id. { 1031(3) (defining "contestant"); cf. In re L.W.,