Title: In re T.L.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re T.L. and N.L.  (98-402); 169 Vt. 550; 726 A.2d 496

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-402

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1998

In re T.L. and N.L.	              }	APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }	Franklin Family Court
                                      }	
                                      }
                                      }	DOCKET NO. 198/199-12-97 Frjv	

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Mother appeals from a disposition order transferring legal custody of
  mother's children to  the Commissioner of the Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS).  She argues that  (1) the court had no
  authority to enter a provision for another disposition review to be done
  after  three months, (2) the findings were not supported by the evidence,
  and (3) the findings are  inadequate to support the conclusion.  We vacate
  the order.

       The case involves two children.  T.L.'s father appeared in the
  proceedings, but N.L.'s  father is unknown.  Following a detention hearing
  in December 1997, the court ordered custody  transferred to SRS.  In March
  1998, the parties stipulated to a finding of CHINS, and in July  1998, the
  court held a disposition hearing.  The record indicates that at the time of
  the hearing,  T.L. was in foster care, and N.L. was living with mother and
  her boyfriend, although the child  had been in foster care for some time
  during the winter.  

       The court made minimal findings, and some of these findings are
  clearly erroneous.  The  following findings were supported by the evidence. 
  T.L.'s father was not capable of caring for  T.L. at the time of the
  hearing because he did not have a place to live; he was residing with his 
  parents but wanted to get an apartment so T.L. could eventually live with
  him.  Mother has lived  with her boyfriend for several years; he has
  physically and mentally abused the children by using  excessive means to
  discipline them.  Although the boyfriend left mother's home briefly, he 
  returned, and the children's behavior deteriorated in consequence.  The
  boyfriend has refused to  submit to drug screening. The court found that it
  was necessary to continue custody with SRS in  order to monitor mother's
  home to prevent abuse of N.L. and to help mother improve N.L.'s  behavior
  and mental health.  Further, the court found that T.L. cannot live with
  mother, that T.L.  was getting along with his father, and that he wanted to
  live with father.  The court concluded that  a three-month review was
  warranted in this case.  Mother appeals.

       Mother first argues that the court had no authority to order review of
  the disposition in  three months because the statute provides for review
  only at specifically enumerated times or upon  motion on the ground of
  changed circumstances.  See 33 V.S.A. §§ 5531, 5532.  We agree that  the
  three-month-review provision is contrary to the statute.  See In re A.A.,
  134 Vt. 41, 43,