Title: In re J.J.P.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re J.J.P.  (97-500); 168 Vt. 143; 719 A.2d 394

[Filed 2-Jul-1998]

       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. 97-500

In re J.J.P., Juvenile                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Caledonia Family Court

                                             June Term, 1998

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for Appellant.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Barbara L.
  Crippen, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Appellee SRS.

       Robert Appell, Defender General, and William A. Nelson and Henry
  Hinton, Appellate Attorneys, for Appellee Juvenile.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Cashman, D.J.,
          Specially Assigned

       JOHNSON, J.   Mother appeals from a family court order that terminated
  her parental rights (TPR) to J.J.P. at the initial disposition.  She argues
  that the court erred by failing to vacate the merits determination -- that
  J.J.P. was a child in need of care and supervision (CHINS) -- because the
  prosecutor had a conflict of interest.  Without a merits determination, she
  maintains that the TPR order is invalid.  Mother also claims that the TPR
  order is not supported by any evidence of current circumstances.  We
  affirm.

       Mother has eight children; J.J.P., the youngest child, is three years
  old.  Mother's seven other children had all been removed from mother's care
  by the end of 1993.(FN1)  In 1995, mother fled Vermont after she was served
  with a citation to appear in district court to respond to

 

  charges of sexually assaulting her two older sons.  J.J.P. was born June
  30, 1995.  Mother was taken into custody in Florida on July 25, 1995, and
  J.J.P. was taken into custody six days later when he was only one month
  old.  Mother was extradited to Vermont and, by the end of August, J.J.P.
  was transferred to Vermont and placed in foster care with a couple who had
  adopted the next youngest child born to mother, J.J.P.'s half-sister.  SRS
  petitioned for a determination that J.J.P. was CHINS.

       On April 15, 1996, a jury convicted mother on one count of sexual
  assault against her son but acquitted her on the other three counts; she
  was sentenced to twenty-five to thirty-eight years.  In July 1996, the
  court granted the CHINS petition based on mother's sexual abuse of her
  children and on a record of chronic parental unfitness that had resulted in
  mother's seven other children being removed from her home.  In December
  1996, father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights.  In March 1997,
  mother moved to vacate the CHINS determination on the ground that the
  prosecutor was the wife and law partner of an attorney who had represented
  mother in an earlier CHINS proceeding, and that, therefore, the merits
  proceedings were tainted by the prosecutor's conflict of interest.

       Following a hearing, the court agreed that the merits proceeding was
  tainted by the conflict of interest; however, the court concluded that
  vacating the merits order was inappropriate because there was no evidence
  of misuse of confidential information and because the delay would have a
  detrimental impact on J.J.P., who had already been in state custody for
  twenty months.  Nonetheless, the court required the State to prove its case
  for TPR by clear and convincing evidence without relying on findings or
  conclusions made at the merits.  This remedy, the court concluded,
  eliminates the possibility of any prejudice that may have tainted the
  merits proceeding from affecting the outcome of the TPR proceeding.

       On October 24, 1997, following a three-day evidentiary hearing, the
  court issued an order terminating the residual parental rights of mother. 
  The court concluded that the order was justified based on the evidence of
  physical, sexual and emotional abuse and physical, medical

 

  and nutritional neglect of her other seven children; even with the
  assistance of social services over a long period, she had been unable to
  appropriately parent the children.  Moreover, mother had no relationship
  with J.J.P.; she had had no contact with J.J.P. since she was taken into
  custody in Florida when J.J.P. was less than one month old.  J.J.P. had
  been living with the same foster parents for over two years and these
  parents wished to adopt him.  Thus, the court concluded that it was in
  J.J.P.'s best interests to terminate mother's residual parental rights and
  free J.J.P. for adoption.

       On October 31, 1997, this Court reversed mother's jury conviction for
  sexual assault and entered a judgment of acquittal.  See State v.
  Crepeault, 8 Vt. L.W. 283, 284 (1997).  Although the reversal was based on
  other grounds, we discussed the prosecutor's conflict of interest and
  concluded that "it is apparent that the prosecutor's conduct here tainted
  the proceedings and the judgment."  Id. at 286.  We did not reach the
  question of whether reversal would have been compelled by the conflict had
  there been no other ground compelling us to acquit the defendant.

       Mother appeals from the TPR order, arguing first that the trial court
  erred by failing to vacate the merits order based on the prosecutor's
  conflict of interest.  She relies on criminal cases in which the appellate
  court has reversed a conviction because the prosecutor had previously
  represented the defendant in a substantially related matter.  See, e.g.,
  Reaves v. State,