Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed competing petitions concerning a voluntary guardianship, the termination of a father’s parental rights, and the return of custody to the father. The court affirmed denial of the grandfather’s petition to terminate parental rights, holding that the evidence did not establish that the father failed to exercise parental responsibility. It reversed denial of the father’s petition to terminate the guardianship because the superior court improperly placed the burden on the father rather than applying the parental-custody presumption, and remanded for transfer of custody.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence and statutory factors supported termination of father's parental rights based principally on his failure to provide financial support and maintain regular contact with K.M.M.
- Whether the superior court applied the correct burden of proof when considering father's petition to terminate the voluntary guardianship and return custody to him.
- Whether the superior court's denial of both petitions improperly left K.M.M.'s permanent custody unresolved.
Holdings
- Father's failure to pay support, standing alone, did not establish a failure to exercise parental responsibility, and the record did not support termination of his parental rights because he had attempted to regain custody, was capable and willing to assume custody, and was prevented from maintaining regular contact in substantial part by grandfather's conduct.
- The superior court erred by requiring father to prove that returning K.M.M. to his custody was in her best interests. A parent seeking revocation of a voluntary guardianship is entitled to a presumption that parental custody is in the child's best interests, and the party opposing revocation bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.
Key quotations
“a parent who seeks to revoke a [voluntary] guardianship . . . enjoys a presumption that his or her custody is in the child’s best interest.” (383)
“We conclude therefore that granting guardianship to a third person in preference to a parent who has demonstrated a commitment to parenthood based solely on a judicial determination of the best interests of the child — "without first requiring the third party to demonstrate that the parent is unfit — denies the natural parent due process of law."” (384)
“Consistent with our decision in Boisvert, the absence of findings that overcome the parental preference calls for termination of grandfather’s guardianship.” (385)
Factual background
K.M.M.'s parents voluntarily consented to a guardianship in favor of her grandfather in 2001 because of parental substance-abuse problems and father's incarceration. After father was released in 2002, he sought to regain custody, but ongoing conflict between father and grandfather hindered visitation, family services, and evaluations. By the time of the superior court proceedings, father had stopped abusing drugs and alcohol, maintained employment and housing, and developed a loving relationship with K.M.M.; the child was also well-adjusted and well cared for in grandfather's home.
Procedural history
K.M.M.'s parents consented to a voluntary guardianship in favor of her grandfather in 2001. Father repeatedly sought termination of the guardianship, while grandfather sought termination of father's parental rights and adoption. The Caledonia Probate Court denied the relevant petitions, and the matter proceeded to a de novo hearing in the Caledonia Superior Court, which denied both grandfather's petition and father's motion. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of termination of parental rights, reversed the denial of termination of the guardianship, and remanded for transfer of custody to father.
Remand instructions
The superior court must exercise its discretion to effectuate a transfer of K.M.M.'s custody to father within an appropriate time. The denial of grandfather's petition to terminate father's parental rights was affirmed; the denial of father's motion to terminate the guardianship was reversed.