In re M.M. and C.M., Juveniles

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a family division order adjudicating M.M. and C.M. as children in need of care or supervision (CHINS). The court held that the evidence, including the mother's substance-use history, prenatal opioid exposure, and prior unsafe supervision of M.M., supported the adjudications as of the petition date. A partial concurrence and dissent disputed the CHINS finding as to C.M. based primarily on prenatal opioid dependence and medically supervised treatment.

Holdings

1. A child may be adjudicated CHINS when the evidence establishes by a preponderance that the child is without proper parental care necessary for the child's well-being; actual harm is not required.
2. A child born opioid-dependent is not automatically CHINS solely because of that dependence when it results from the mother's consistent and full participation in a bona fide addiction-treatment program; however, on this record, the finding that C.M. was CHINS was supported by mother's inconsistent treatment, use of street-obtained buprenorphine, relapse, and delayed return to medically monitored treatment.
3. A CHINS court may consider circumstances leading up to the filing of the petition, and evidence is not too stale merely because it did not occur on the precise filing date, so long as it is relevant to the child's well-being at the time of filing.
4. The alleged factual errors did not warrant reversal because they were not significant and the supported findings were sufficient to sustain the CHINS adjudications.

Questions Presented

1. Whether alleged factual errors concerning C.M.'s birth weight, opioid dependence, mother's treatment history, and alcohol tolerance required reversal.
2. Whether C.M. could be adjudicated CHINS based on mother's substance-use history, prenatal use of unprescribed buprenorphine, and C.M.'s opioid dependence at birth.
3. Whether evidence concerning M.M.'s earlier incidents of improper restraint, mother's intoxicated driving, and dental neglect was too stale to support a CHINS finding as of the petition date.
4. Whether the trial court construed the CHINS statute too broadly.

Disposition

affirmed