Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case:
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
· cites it 18× “33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, 82 A.3d 1143.
· cites it 6× “See 33 V.S.A. § 5315 (requiring state to prove by preponderance of evidence that child is in need of care and supervision at merits).”
In re J.C. & T.F., Juveniles, 2016 VT 9, 138 A.3d 830.
· cites it 2× “¶ 14; see also 33 V.S.A. § 5315(a) (“At a 6 hearing on the merits of a petition, the State shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is in need of care and supervision.”
In re C.L.S., Juv., 2020 VT 1, 225 A.3d 644.
“Because the alleged errors took place prior to the initial disposition order, which parents did not appeal, we hold that they are precluded from raising these arguments now.”
In re M.M. & C.M., Juveniles, 2015 VT 122, 133 A.3d 379.
· cites it 2× “DCF allowed the 1 Although both parties agree that a CHINS determination requires that a child be one who is in need of care, 33 V.S.A. §§ 5315(a), 5102(3)(B), the parties have not preserved the issue of whether the use of the word “is” requires that the child need care only at…”
In re D.C., Juv., 2012 VT 108, 71 A.3d 1191.
“*112 ¶ 23. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that a TPR proceeding does not occur in a vacuum.”
In re C.B., Juv., 2020 VT 80, 249 A.3d 1281.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(g) (explaining that CHINS merits decision becomes final after disposition order is issued); id.”
In re M.L., Juv., 2018 VT 32, 186 A.3d 618.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315. Considerations about the resources or treatment opportunities available through the State in the event of a CHINS merits determination, or available to the State if it assumes custody of a child, have little if any relevance to the question whether a child is…”
In re A.M., Juveniles, 2019 VT 79.
“Section 5318(a) provides that at disposition the court “shall make such orders related to legal custody for a child who has been found to be in need of care and supervision as the court determines are in the best interest of the child,” which may include “[a]n order transferring…”
In re M.M., Juv., 2024 VT 28, 319 A.3d 726.
“The State contends that the disposition order mooted these issues because 1 They could not pursue a direct appeal as of right until after the disposition order issued because a merits adjudication “is not a final order subject to appeal separate from the resulting disposition…”
In re J.N., Juv., 2023 VT 34, 298 A.3d 582.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(f) (stating that if allegations in CHINS petition are not established, court shall dismiss petition and vacate any existing orders).”
In re B.B., B.C., & B.B., Juveniles, 2019 VT 12, 208 A.3d 244.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(g) (explaining that merits adjudication "is not a final order subject to appeal separate from the resulting disposition order").”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(a): 11 cases
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re J.C. & T.F., Juveniles, 2016 VT 9, 138 A.3d 830.
“¶ 14; see also 33 V.S.A. § 5315(a) (“At a 6 hearing on the merits of a petition, the State shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is in need of care and supervision.”
In re M.M. & C.M., Juveniles, 2015 VT 122, 133 A.3d 379.
“DCF allowed the 1 Although both parties agree that a CHINS determination requires that a child be one who is in need of care, 33 V.S.A. §§ 5315(a), 5102(3)(B), the parties have not preserved the issue of whether the use of the word “is” requires that the child need care only at…”
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, 82 A.3d 1143.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315 (requiring state to prove by preponderance of evidence that child is in need of care and supervision at merits).”
In re D.C., Juv., 2012 VT 108, 71 A.3d 1191.
“*112 ¶ 23. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that a TPR proceeding does not occur in a vacuum.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(b): 1 case
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(c): 1 case
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(d): 3 cases
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(e): 3 cases
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re D.D., 2013 VT 79, 82 A.3d 1143.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315 (requiring state to prove by preponderance of evidence that child is in need of care and supervision at merits).”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(f): 3 cases
In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, 97 A.3d 867.
“33 V.S.A. § 5315(a), (f), (g). The State’s burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re J.N., Juv., 2023 VT 34, 298 A.3d 582.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(f) (stating that if allegations in CHINS petition are not established, court shall dismiss petition and vacate any existing orders).”
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 5315(g): 8 cases
In re C.L.S., Juv., 2020 VT 1, 225 A.3d 644.
“Because the alleged errors took place prior to the initial disposition order, which parents did not appeal, we hold that they are precluded from raising these arguments now.”
In re C.B., Juv., 2020 VT 80, 249 A.3d 1281.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(g) (explaining that CHINS merits decision becomes final after disposition order is issued); id.”
In re A.M., Juveniles, 2019 VT 79.
“Section 5318(a) provides that at disposition the court “shall make such orders related to legal custody for a child who has been found to be in need of care and supervision as the court determines are in the best interest of the child,” which may include “[a]n order transferring…”
In re M.M., Juv., 2024 VT 28, 319 A.3d 726.
“The State contends that the disposition order mooted these issues because 1 They could not pursue a direct appeal as of right until after the disposition order issued because a merits adjudication “is not a final order subject to appeal separate from the resulting disposition…”
In re B.B., B.C., & B.B., Juveniles, 2019 VT 12, 208 A.3d 244.
“See 33 V.S.A. § 5315(g) (explaining that merits adjudication "is not a final order subject to appeal separate from the resulting disposition order").”
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.