Opinion ID: 4416361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: B., 2016 VT 70, 202 Vt. 311, 149 A.3d 160.

Text: ¶ 10. Juvenile contends the order is appealable and in support notes that this Court recently reviewed a family court order denying a petition to terminate the parental rights of one parent. In re N.L., 2019 VT 10, __ Vt. __, 207 A.3d 475. In In re N.L., this Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the termination petition as to father because the findings did not support the conclusions of the court. Id. ¶ 13. We distinguish that case on several grounds. The most important difference is that in In re N.L., the family court made findings that are characteristic of a disposition order and did not reserve disposition to a later date. In In re N.L., the family court terminated mother’s parental rights, denied termination of father’s rights, continued the existing conditional-custody order, changed the caseplan goal, and ordered parent-child contact. Id. ¶ 7. The family court expressly declined to require DCF to prepare a new case plan and did not reserve issues for further hearing. Although the decision does not say so specifically, by resolving custody, parent-child contact, setting a reunification goal, and adopting a case plan, the court essentially issued a disposition order. See 33 V.S.A. § 5318 (explaining that at disposition the court makes order related to legal custody and establishes permanency goal and case plan). Moreover, in In re N.L., the issue of finality was not raised or addressed.  As explained in In re N.L., we did not reach the question of whether the family court in In re N.L. had authority to impose a new case plan goal because the issue was not raised by the parties. 2019 VT 10, ¶ 18 n.1. 4 ¶ 11. Because there was no final judgment in this case and juvenile did not seek permission for interlocutory review, we dismiss the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment. FOR THE COURT: