(a) The juvenile judicial proceedings chapters shall be construed in accordance with the
following purposes:
(1) to provide for the care, protection, education, and healthy mental, physical, and
social development of children coming within the provisions of the juvenile judicial
proceedings chapters;
(2) to remove from children committing delinquent acts the taint of criminality and the
consequences of criminal behavior and to provide supervision, care, and rehabilitation
that ensure:
(A) balanced attention to the protection of the community;
(B) accountability to victims and the community for offenses; and
(C) the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive
members of the community;
(3) to preserve the family and to separate a child from his or her parents only when necessary
to protect the child from serious harm or in the interests of public safety;
(4) to ensure that safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns
in the administration and conduct of proceedings under the juvenile judicial proceedings
chapters;
(5) to achieve the foregoing purposes, whenever possible, in a family environment, recognizing
the importance of positive parent-child relationships to the well-being and development
of children;
(6) to provide judicial proceedings through which the provisions of the juvenile judicial
proceedings chapters are executed and enforced and in which the parties are ensured
a fair hearing, and that their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized
and enforced.
(b) The provisions of the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters shall be construed as
superseding the provisions of the criminal law of this State to the extent the same
are inconsistent with this chapter. (Added 2007, No. 185 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2009.)
In re D.K., Juv., 2012 VT 23 (Vt. 2012). · cites it 6דSee 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a) (setting forth purposes underlying juvenile proceedings provisions).”
In re C.L.S., Juv., 2021 VT 25 (Vt. 2021). · cites it 3דSee 33 V.S.A. § 5101(4) (stating that “safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns in the administration and conduct of proceedings under the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters”); In re P.”
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 2דSee 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) (directing that juvenile statutes should be construed “[t]o assure that safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns”).”
In re D.F., H.F., M.F. & D.F., Juveniles, 204 A.3d 641 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 2ד” 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(3). In In re N.H., we wrote “[t]he statute certainly does not allow for intervention simply because a child might be better off somewhere else.”
In re L.M., 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2דSee 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(1) (indicating that juvenile statutes must be construed, among other things, to provide for care and protection of children coming within its provisions, and to preserve family if appropriate).”
In Re K.G. & L.G. Juveniles, 2023 VT 51 (Vt. 2023). · cites it 3דEven assuming that the right existed and was violated, the court found that granting parents’ request would either (1) yield no benefit for any of the parties; or (2) offend the paramount goal of timely permanency set out in 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) and federal law and be contrary…”
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). “§ 5101(b) (“The provisions of the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters shall be construed as superseding the provisions of the criminal law of this State to the extent the same are inconsistent with this chapter.”). ¶ 12. But landowner further argues that he would…”
In re A.S. & K.S., Juveniles, 2016 VT 76 (Vt. 2016). “” 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) (emphasis added). The statute also states, however, that it should be *422 construed to ensure that the parties are provided “a fair hearing, and that their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.”
In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2דSee 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(3) (stating that one purpose of juvenile judicial proceedings is to “preserve the family and to separate a child from his or her parents only when necessary to protect the child from serious harm or in the interests of public safety”).”
In re L.H., L.H. & L.H., Juveniles, 182 A.3d 612 (Vt. 2018). “In this setting, we are particularly concerned that an avoidable appearance of impropriety, and questions about the role of the State's counsel, not be allowed to undermine confidence in the judicial process by the parties to the proceeding and the public more generally.”
State v. Ashley Nutbrown-Covey, 169 A.3d 216 (Vt. 2017). “S.A. § 4501(e). Although the timeline goals for adjudicating the merits of a CHINS petition are not always met, the need to achieve permanency without undue delay for a child is paramount in our juvenile system.”
State v. Jasen Suhr, 2018 VT 49 (Vt. 2018). “Participation in the Restorative Justice Panel had a rehabilitative purpose that was central to defendant’s treatment and the purpose of the youthful-offender program.”
In re C.L.S., Juv., 2021 VT 25 (Vt. 2021). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(4) (stating that “safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns in the administration and conduct of proceedings under the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters”); In re P.”
In re L.M., 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(1) (indicating that juvenile statutes must be construed, among other things, to provide for care and protection of children coming within its provisions, and to preserve family if appropriate).”
State v. Jasen Suhr, 2018 VT 49 (Vt. 2018). “Participation in the Restorative Justice Panel had a rehabilitative purpose that was central to defendant’s treatment and the purpose of the youthful-offender program.”
In re D.F., H.F., M.F. & D.F., Juveniles, 204 A.3d 641 (Vt. 2018). “” 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(3). In In re N.H., we wrote “[t]he statute certainly does not allow for intervention simply because a child might be better off somewhere else.”
In re L.M., 93 A.3d 553 (Vt. 2014). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(1) (indicating that juvenile statutes must be construed, among other things, to provide for care and protection of children coming within its provisions, and to preserve family if appropriate).”
In re A.W., 2014 VT 32 (Vt. 2014). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(3) (stating that one purpose of juvenile judicial proceedings is to “preserve the family and to separate a child from his or her parents only when necessary to protect the child from serious harm or in the interests of public safety”).”
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79 (Vt. 2013). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) (directing that juvenile statutes should be construed “[t]o assure that safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns”).”
In Re K.G. & L.G. Juveniles, 2023 VT 51 (Vt. 2023). “Even assuming that the right existed and was violated, the court found that granting parents’ request would either (1) yield no benefit for any of the parties; or (2) offend the paramount goal of timely permanency set out in 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) and federal law and be contrary…”
In re A.S. & K.S., Juveniles, 2016 VT 76 (Vt. 2016). “” 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(4) (emphasis added). The statute also states, however, that it should be *422 construed to ensure that the parties are provided “a fair hearing, and that their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.”
In re L.H., L.H. & L.H., Juveniles, 182 A.3d 612 (Vt. 2018). “In this setting, we are particularly concerned that an avoidable appearance of impropriety, and questions about the role of the State's counsel, not be allowed to undermine confidence in the judicial process by the parties to the proceeding and the public more generally.”
In re C.L.S., Juv., 2021 VT 25 (Vt. 2021). “See 33 V.S.A. § 5101(4) (stating that “safety and timely permanency for children are the paramount concerns in the administration and conduct of proceedings under the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters”); In re P.”
Donald Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84 (Vt. 2016). “§ 5101(b) (“The provisions of the juvenile judicial proceedings chapters shall be construed as superseding the provisions of the criminal law of this State to the extent the same are inconsistent with this chapter.”). ¶ 12. But landowner further argues that he would…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.