### VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 23

- AP

- 109

109 State Street

Montpelier VT 05609

- 0801

802

- 828

- 4774

www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) i ndicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicate s a cross

appellant. Decisions of a three

- justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.



### ENTRY ORDER

OCTOBER TERM

, 2023

In re Appeal of G.L.* } APPEA LED FROM:

} Human Services Board

} CASE NO. L

- 01/22

- 046

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Petitioner appeals from a Human Servi ces Board decision that dismiss ed his appeal as

moot. We affirm.

The record indicates the following

. Petitioner was substantiated by the Department for

Children and Families (DCF) for sexu al abuse by exploitation . I n January 2022, he appe aled this

decision t o the Board

. See 33 V.S.A. § 4916b(a) ( allowing individual “ who is the subject of [ a ]

substan t iation ” t o seek relief from Board within thirty days of “notice of placement of a report on

the [Child Prote ction] Registry ” ). M ultiple status conf erences followed. In October 2022, the

State informed the Board tha t the partie s were clo se to resolv ing th e case and tha t a dismissal

request would be forthcoming. The following mo nth, the State moved to dismiss the appeal as

moot because petitione r ’ s name had been removed from the Vermont Child Protection Re gistry.

The State file d a document certifying that there was n o substantiation listed in connection with

petitioner ’ s case

. Plaintiff opposed the motion to di smiss

. W hile he acknowledged that there

was n o substantiation

, he asserted that DCF kept “ shadow records ” in which he w as “almost

certainly listed as ‘substantiated’ ” and that DCF might later use th is information to sanction him

. Petitioner argue d that the pattern of “essentially keeping shadow records and shadow sanctions”

against persons having been previously substa nt iated “ [was] a naked violat ion of due process ”

and he s ought an “ inquiry into the hidden system,” along with a fair hearing “and an available

remedy.”

T he Board gr anted the State ’ s motion to dismiss

. It ex plained that its jurisdiction was

limited to actual controversies and a petit ioner “must have suffered a particular injury that is

attributable to the [petitioner] and that can be redressed by a court of law. ” Parker v . Town of

Milton , 169 Vt. 74, 77 (1 99 8). Whether there is an actual controversy “ turns on whether the

[petitioner ] is suffering the threat of actual injury to a protected le g al interest, or is merely

speculating about the impact of some generalized grievance. ” Id . (quot ation omitted)

.

In th is case, the Boar d f ound that although plaintiff had standing when he first r equested

a fair hearing related to his substantiation, there was no longer any live controversy

. See In re

S.H. , 141 Vt. 278, 280 (1982) ( explaining that, under mootness doctri ne

, “petitioner ’ s stake in2 the litigation must continue throughout [the] entire ty ” of the case ). Petitioner sought to

challenge his substantiation and th e substantiation was now removed f rom the registry

.

T h e Board found that petitioner stated no other co gnizable claim for relief as to any issue

within the Board’s jurisdiction. Whi le petitio n e r appear ed to take iss u e with DCF ’ s retention of

records related to a person’s substantiation following that person ’ s removal fro m the registry, his

concern that a n “ unprofessional or vindictive DCF employee” w ould improperly use or take

action based on those records was speculative and based on general, conclusory assertions.

P etitioner also raised generalized claims of “due process” violations but identified no a ge ncy

action of any kind that he was actually aggrieved by, let al one one that th e Board was authorized

to consider

. While t he Board was not precluded from hearing claims of due process violations,

th e Board explained, that did not mean that the Board wa s a utomatically the correct forum for

hearing a specific c laim. S ee In re T.O. , 2 021 VT 41 ¶ 19, 215 Vt. 41 (“However laudable the

state and federal legislative goal of promoting the placement of children with relatives, the

Human Services Board is not th e forum our Legislature created to adjudicate petitioners’

perceived failur es b y D CF to carry out that goal.”). In any event, the Board continu ed, “[w]hile

[it ] [could] review ‘agency policy,’ it [could] do so only as far ‘as it affects [a claimant’s]

sit uation

, ” and the Board had no authority “ to issue a declaratory judgment or an inj unction.”

Husrefovic h v . Dep ’ t of Aging & Indep

. Living , 2006 VT 17

, ¶ 28, 179 Vt. 456 ( quoting 3

V

. S.A. § 3091 (a) ). The Board noted that it had previously dism issed substantiation appeals in

the same posture as the instant appeal. T he Boa rd t hus dismis sed petitioner ’s appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. T his appeal fol lowed.

Pe t itioner conte nds that his appeal is not moot because he is “ currently listed, withou t

cor rection, in extensive records that say that he did commit child abuse ” and he has a “ due

pr ocess right in refu ting that

, given that he may be haunted by it for a lifetime otherwise. ”

Peti tioner states that he seek s vindication. He further a ssert s in his reply brief that he is

effectively seeking expung e ment , which he des cribes as rem ovi ng his name from a ny DCF

records . Cf. 33 V.S.A. § 4916c (a) ( providing , as relevant here, that a n individual who “ ha s been

listed on the Registry for at leas t seve n years may file a written request with the Commissioner

seeking a review for the purp ose of expungi ng an individual Registry record ” ).

We review the Board ’ s decision de novo

, Paige v. State , 2017 VT 54, ¶ 6, 205 Vt. 287,

and we agree that this case is moo t. “[A] case generally becomes moot when there is no longer a

live controversy, or th e pa rti es invo lved lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the

case.” State v. Rooney , 2008 VT 102, ¶ 9, 184 Vt. 620 ( mem.) (quotation omitted).

As set forth ab ove, petitioner app ea led fro m D CF ’ s decision t o in clude hi m on the Chi ld

Prote cti on Regi stry ba sed on a substant i ation for sexual abuse. It is undisputed that h is name is

no longer on th e registry for having sexually abused a child . Petitioner pr ovides n o support for

his con clusory and speculative ass ertion s that he is identified as a child abu ser in other records

, that his name must be removed from all such records, and that he might suffer future harm as a

result of unauthor ized access to these unspecif i ed record s

. To the extent petitioner maintains that

some sort of ex ception to t he mo ot ness d o ctrine applies, we reject that argument as inad equately

briefed

. See V.R.A.P. 28(a) ( requiring brief to contain concise statement of case and specific

claims o f error, contentions of appellant, and citations to authorities, statutes an d parts of re cord

re lied on); Johnson v. Johnson , 158 Vt. 160, 164 n.* (1992) ( explaining that Sup reme Court will

not address contentions so inadequately br iefed as to fail to minimally meet standards of3 V.R.A .P. 28(a)). Even if this argument were ad equat ely briefed, we woul d r e ject it on the merits

for the reasons set forth in the State ’ s brief.

Petitioner ’ s des ire for “ vindication

, ” standing alone, does not sho w that he re tain s a

legally co gnizable interest in this case or that there is effective relief that can be gr anted to him.

See Chase v. State

, 2008 VT 107, ¶ 11, 184 Vt. 430 ( recognizing that “an issue becomes moot if

the reviewing court can no l onger gran t effective relief ” ( quotation omitted)). Petition er argued

that he should not be listed on the registry as a se xual abuser and that relief has been granted to

him. H e fails to show that there is any additional relief that can be afforded to hi m

. It is true

, as

petitioner asserts

, that 3 V.S.A. § 3091 (d) s tates that the Boar d may “ reverse or mo dify,

decisio ns of [ an] [a] gency based on rules that the Board determines to be in conflict with State or

federal law

. ” P etition er makes no argument , h o wever, as to how this provision has any relevan ce

to his case. See Johnson , 158 Vt. at 164 n.*

. There is no basis t o dist urb t he Board ’ s d ismissal

of petitioner ’ s appeal as moot.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice