Title: In re M.T., Juvenile

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re M.T., Juvenile (2006-193); 180 Vt. 643; 912 A.2d 456,

2006 VT 114

[Filed 07-Nov-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 114

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-193

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2006


  In re M.T., Juvenile                }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }          Caledonia Family Court
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 49-5-05 CaJv

                                                 Trial Judge: M. Kathleen Manley

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Mother appeals the family court's order terminating her
  parental rights with respect to her son, M.T.  She argues that the court
  lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she was not served with a
  summons to appear at the termination hearing.  We reverse the court's order
  and remand the matter because the court failed to directly notify mother,
  in addition to her attorney, of the scheduled termination hearing.

       ¶  2.  M.T. was born in June 1992 and placed in the custody of the
  Department for Children and Families (DCF) in May 2005 because mother had
  left him with an older brother unable to care for him.  In June 2005,
  mother appeared at a merits hearing and stipulated that M.T. was a child in
  need of care or supervision (CHINS).  In July 2005, at the conclusion of a
  hearing attended by mother's attorney, but not mother, the family court
  entered a disposition order placing M.T. in the custody of DCF.  Mother did
  not request a hearing to contest the disposition order, nor did she appear
  at a later permanency review hearing.  At a December 2005 status conference
  following DCF's filing of a petition to terminate mother's residual
  parental rights and responsibilities, mother's attorney advised the court
  "to just proceed with a hearing on the petition."  The attorney stated that
  she would notify mother, but she doubted that mother would show up.  She
  expressed her belief that "the State [would] present the quantum of
  evidence."  The court stated that the "better course" would be to serve
  mother personally once a termination hearing was scheduled.  Mother's
  attorney responded that she would send mother papers giving her an
  opportunity to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights and would
  personally serve mother regarding the termination hearing if mother did not
  agree to sign the papers.
   
       ¶  3.  One month later, at another status conference, mother's
  attorney indicated that she would be filing a motion to withdraw based on
  hostile communications from mother.  Apparently, in response to receiving
  voluntary relinquishment papers from her attorney, mother left a
  belligerent message on the attorney's answering machine.  The attorney
  reported to the court that mother had made it "clear that she will not
  under any circumstances voluntarily relinquish her parental rights."  The
  court scheduled a later hearing to consider the attorney's motion to
  withdraw and, in the meantime, scheduled a two-hour termination hearing for
  March 16, 2006, after the State indicated that one hour would be
  sufficient.  At a later hearing, the court denied the attorney's motion to
  withdraw, and the attorney informed the court that she sent mother notice
  of the hearing at the same New Hampshire address where she had sent other
  prior notices to mother.  The court stated that it was troubled by mother
  not attending the hearing to express her apparent dissatisfaction with the
  attorney, but that, given what was at stake, it would be better to have her
  represented by competent counsel.

       ¶  4.  At the termination hearing, DCF's attorney submitted into
  evidence two letters that the Department had sent to mother notifying her
  of the date and location of the termination hearing and requesting that she
  attend.  The letters had been sent certified, return requested, and had
  been signed by mother.  Two witnesses for the State testified at the
  hearing-a social worker and M.T.'s foster father.  Following the hearing,
  the family court granted DCF's termination petition, finding that mother
  had abandoned M.T., had not complied with the disposition case plan, and
  would be unable to resume parental duties within a reasonable period of
  time.  Regarding notice to mother, the court stated that mother had
  apparently been receiving notices of the various hearings from her
  attorney, and further that DCF had sent her two certified letters, return
  receipt, notifying her of the termination hearing.

       ¶  5.  On appeal, mother argues that the family court did not
  acquire personal jurisdiction over her because service of the termination
  petition was defective in that the court failed to direct the issuance of a
  summons for her appearance at the hearing, as required by statute. 
  According to mother, a termination proceeding is separate and distinct from
  a CHINS proceeding, and thus the notice requirements of 33 V.S.A. §§
  5519-5520-including that the court direct issuance of a summons-apply.  To
  support this argument, mother relies primarily upon two sources:     In re
  B.C. 175 Vt. 1, 5,