Title: In re C.M.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-048


In re C.M., Juvenile                         Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

                                             Special December Term, 1990


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Howard E. VanBenthuysen, Franklin County State's Attorney, and Jo-Ann Gross,
  Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for plaintiff-appellee

Daniel Albert, Public Defender, St. Albans, for defendant-appellee

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for defendant-appellant father

Paul R. Clemente and Christopher Jeffrey, Montpelier, for defendant-
  appellant mother


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   C.M.'s mother and father each appeal from a juvenile
court order that their child was in need of care and supervision (CHINS),
within the meaning of 33 V.S.A. { 632(a)(12).  We affirm.
     On May 11, 1989, the State filed a petition on behalf of the Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), alleging that appellants'
daughter, C.M., was a victim of sexual and physical abuse by her father and
a victim of neglect by her mother.  At a merits hearing conducted on July 6,
1989, C.M., her mother, and an SRS worker testified.  At the close of the
testimony the court made a finding of CHINS based on evidence that C.M.'s
father had sexually abused her.  The court ordered custody of C.M. to be
continued in SRS and requested preparation of a disposition report.  After
the filing of the disposition report, the court ordered a further hearing,
and following that hearing, on January 22, 1990, the court issued
additional findings and an order transferring custody and guardianship of
C.M. to the commissioner of SRS.  The present appeals followed.
     C.M.'s mother argues that the trial court's findings with respect to
her are clearly erroneous, because they are unsupported by the evidence.
The court's critical findings as to the mother were:
            1.  The mother[,] aware of the danger of the child
          being injured by the father[,] continued to permit him
          to care for the child by himself from time to time.

            2.  The mother has not and can not protect the child
          in a family setting with her husband despite her aware-
          ness of his dangerous physical actions towards the
          child.

            3.  The mother claims disbelief of the child's testi-
          mony regarding the sexual abuse of the child by the
          father and does not intend to take any action to protect
          the child from the father.

            . . . .

            5.  The child suffers from a chronic hyperactivity
          problem.  Her mother, over the last year, has failed and
          refused to assist her to monitor a conservative drug
          regimen prescribed for the malady.

            . . . .

            7.  Failure to properly administer the drug doses has
          adversely affected the child's health and schooling.

     As to findings 1 and 2, the social worker assigned to the family
testified at the October 20, 1989 hearing that as "a continuing theme in the
work with the family," she had warned the mother that C.M. and the father
should not be left alone.  Thereafter, the mother told the social worker
that she left C.M. alone with her father after school and that "between
school and [the mother's] coming home, there were often times [C.M.] and
[her father] were together."  The same witness testified that the mother had
admitted that C.M. was also left alone with her father "all during school
vacations."  In addition, the mother herself testified that on at least one
occasion C.M. was left alone with her father and that on another occasion
C.M. and another child were alone with him.
     As to findings 5 and 7, the nurse at C.M.'s school testified that on a
day when C.M. appeared to be disoriented and a question was raised about the
child's medication levels, the mother told her that C.M. had been respon-
sible for her own medication since she was four years old.  That testimony,
viewed in a light most favorable to the State, supports finding 5, but does
not support finding 7, because there was no evidence that C.M.'s general
health problems were linked to her medication regimen or that whatever
problems C.M. might be having at school were attributable to the mother's
failure to supervise C.M.'s medication.  Nor does the evidence support that
part of finding 3 concerning the mother's disbelief of the child's testimony
regarding the father's sexual abuse.
     The mother argues that these findings clearly were based on the
disposition report, not in-court testimony, and that the disposition report
contained inadmissible hearsay.  She is correct that hearsay allegations in
the disposition report cannot serve as the basis for determining parental
unfitness.  In re Y.B., 143 Vt. 344, 347-48,