permanency hearing in Vermont

2024It is well-established that “once the family court applies the [statutory best-interest] criteria . . . and determines that the child’s best interests warrant giving the State custody of the child without limitation to adoption, the court need not revisit the permanency hearing options” set forth by statute, “and explain why it is choosing termination of parental rights over other options enumerated therein.” In re T.T., 2005 VT 30, ¶ 7 , 178 Vt. 496 (mem.).

2024It is well-established that “once the family court applies the [statutory best-interest] criteria . . . and determines that the child’s best interests warrant giving the State custody of the child without limitation to adoption, the court need not revisit the permanency hearing options” set forth by statute, “and explain why it is choosing termination of parental rights over other options enumerated therein.” In re T.T., 2005 VT 30, ¶ 7 , 178 Vt. 496 (mem.).

2001We addressed this issue, however, in In re J.H., 156 Vt. 66, 69 , 587 A.2d 1009, 1011 (1991), wherein we held that “pursuant to § 5531, disposition orders are reviewed periodically but, pursuant to § 5532, the orders will be modified only if the proponent of modification can show that it is warranted by changed circumstances.” See 33 V.S.A. § 5532(a) (modification or vacation of orders).

2001We addressed this issue, however, in In re J.H., 156 Vt. 66, 69 , 587 A.2d 1009, 1011 (1991), wherein we held that "pursuant to § 5531, disposition orders are reviewed periodically but, pursuant to § 5532, the orders will *1079 be modified only if the proponent of modification can show that it is warranted by changed circumstances." See 33 V.S.A. § 5532(a) (modification or vacation of orders).

2019See In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, ¶ 22 , 194 Vt. 508 , 82 A.3d 1143 (“An appealable order is one that finally disposes of the matter before the court by settling the rights of the parties on issues raised by the pleadings.”).

2019See In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, ¶ 22 , 194 Vt. 508 , 82 A.3d 1143 (“An appealable order is one that finally disposes of the matter before the court by settling the rights of the parties on issues raised by the pleadings.”).

2013Because a disposition order is a “final order,” id. § 5318(d), and thus meets the standard for an appealable order, see In re Burlington Bagel Bakery, Inc., 150 Vt. 20, 21 , 549 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1988) (to be final and appealable, an order must “end litigation on the merits or conclusively determine the rights of the *435 parties, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (quotation omitted)), the parties can appeal a disposition order whether original or as a result of modification.

2013Because a disposition order is a “final order,” id. § 5318(d), and thus meets the standard for an appealable order, see In re Burlington Bagel Bakery, Inc., 150 Vt. 20, 21 , 549 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1988) (to be final and appealable, an order must “end litigation on the merits or conclusively determine the rights of the *435 parties, leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (quotation omitted)), the parties can appeal a disposition order whether original or as a result of modification.

2013See In re T.T., 2005 VT 30, ¶ 7 , 178 Vt. 496 (mem.) (“[O]nce the family court . . . determines that the child’s best interests warrant giving the State custody of the child without limitation as to adoption, the court need not revisit the permanency hearing options . . . .)”); In re L.A., 154 Vt. 147, 160 (1990) (court is not required to address parent-child visitation when deciding whether termination is in child’s best interests).