In re H.T. & M.L., Juveniles

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the termination of the parents’ rights in two juveniles. The court held that accepting the parents’ stipulation that the children were in need of care or supervision did not constitute plain error, and that the substantial delay before disposition, although erroneous, was harmless in the circumstances. The court also concluded that the evidence supported the finding that the parents would not be able to resume parenting within a reasonable time.

Holdings

1. The family division did not commit plain error in accepting the parents' written CHINS stipulation because the record showed that the stipulation was knowingly and voluntarily entered after consultation with counsel and that the parents understood they were waiving a merits hearing and the opportunity to present additional evidence.
2. The family division erred by failing to enter a disposition order for approximately two and one-half years after the CHINS merits determination, but the error was harmless because the delay did not deprive the court of jurisdiction and the parents failed to show prejudice.
3. The family division's findings supported its conclusion that the parents would not be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable time, and the termination of parental rights was not an abuse of discretion.
4. The family division was not required to expressly recite and weigh the guardians ad litem's opinions in its termination decision, so long as it evaluated the evidence and determined the children's best interests under the governing law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the family division committed plain error by accepting the parents' stipulation that the children were CHINS without expressly explaining the State's preponderance-of-the-evidence burden and the circumstances under which temporary-care findings could be used.
2. Whether the approximately two-and-one-half-year delay between the CHINS merits determination and the initial disposition hearing violated the parents' due process rights, deprived the court of jurisdiction, or prejudiced the termination decision.
3. Whether the evidence and findings supported the conclusion that the parents would not be able to resume parental duties within a reasonable time.
4. Whether the family division was required to expressly consider the guardians ad litem's opinions in deciding to terminate parental rights.

Disposition

affirmed