Title: In re CB

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.93-269; 162 Vt. 614; 644 A.2d 1294


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-269

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1994


 In re C.B., Juvenile              }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          Chittenden Family Court
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. F228-6-92CnJv


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      C.B.'s mother, R.B., appeals from a disposition order granting
 continued custody of C.B. to the Department of Social and Rehabilitation
 Services (SRS) for placement outside the home.  R.B. contends (1) that the
 evidence presented at the disposition hearing does not support the court's
 findings, (2) that a disposition order depriving the parent of custody may
 not rest exclusively on hearsay, and (3) that C.B.'s attorney failed to
 advocate C.B.'s desire to return home, and instead advocated the guardian ad
 litem's position favoring the SRS recommendations.  We vacate the order on
 the first issue and do not reach issues two and three.

      In June 1992, the State petitioned the family court to find C.B. a
 child in need of care and supervision (CHINS), alleging that C.B. had
 serious, painful, and untreated dental problems, and that her mother had
 struck her several times.  After a merits hearing, the court adjudged C.B. a
 CHINS and placed her in the temporary custody of SRS.  A disposition hearing
 commenced in September 1992, but was continued before any evidence was
 presented.  The hearing eventually was held in May 1993.(FN1)

      A disposition report, written in September 1992 and admitted into
 evidence without objection, reported (1) that R.B. had neglected C.B.'s
 dental needs, causing severe pain and noticeable disfigurement of C.B.'s
 teeth, (2) that R.B. had slapped and bruised C.B.'s face, and (3) "[t]hat
 [R.B.] has a severe substance abuse problem that has interfered with her
 ability to adequately supervise and parent her child."  In its order
 granting continued custody to SRS, the court found that R.B. "has a severe
 substance abuse problem that has interfered with her ability to adequately
 supervise and parent [C.B.] and which has interfered with [C.B.'s]
 performance in school to the point where [C.B.] is failing in her school
 work."

 

      An order granting custody to SRS for placement outside the parental
 home must rest on "convincing proof and findings that the parents are unfit
 and demonstrably incapable of providing an appropriate home, and that
 separation is necessary for the child's welfare or in the interest of
 public safety."  In re M.B., 147 Vt. 41, 45,