In re K.W.

• Docket Number: 23-AP-218
• Decision Date: 15 December 2023
• Parties: In re K.W., Juvenile (C.W., Mother*)
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

1

In re K.W., Juvenile (C.W., Mother^*)

No. 23-AP-218

Supreme Court of Vermont

December 15, 2023

In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

Appealed from: Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Family Division CASE NO. 22-JV-01789 Trial Judge: Howard A. Kalfus

ENTRY ORDER

PAUL L. REIBER, CHIEF JUSTICE

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Mother appeals a family division order concluding that her daughter K.W. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) due to abuse. On appeal, mother argues that the law and the facts do not support a finding of abuse, the court erred by adjudicating the CHINS abuse allegation after mother stipulation that the child was CHINS due to being out of control, and the court exceeded its authority by modifying the disposition goal. We affirm.

In December 2022, mother contacted the Vermont State Police to report that her fifteen-year-old daughter K.W. was missing and had not been in school for several days. A trooper contacted K.W., and K. W. agreed to meet. K.W. reported that mother was abusive and had physically hit her during an argument, leaving a bruise. K.W. alleged that mother brought her to New York against her will and locked her in a closet for two days. K.W. agreed to enter the custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF), but refused to return to mother's care. The State filed a two-count petition alleging that K.W. was CHINS both due to abuse, CHINS-A, and because she was beyond mother's control, CHINS-C. ^[*] Following an emergency care hearing, the family division found, among other things, that during a disagreement mother punched K.W.'s arm leaving a bruise. The court made no finding on the veracity of K.W.'s claim of being locked in a room. The court found that the State had proven that K.W.'s safety

2

could not be ensured by returning her to mother's care and therefore continued temporary custody with DCF.

In March 2023, the court held a hearing on the merits of the CHINS petition. At the start of the hearing, the parties stipulated that K.W. was CHINS-C because her behaviors placed her beyond mother's control. The State indicated that it intended to proceed on the CHINS-A allegation, and the court set a hearing for disposition on the CHINS-C and a merits hearing on the CHINS-A. At the merits hearing for the CHINS-A count, the court indicated that it would limit testimony to topics not covered in the temporary-care hearing. K.W. testified that mother was angry with her and hit her with her fist. Mother denied punching K.W. and alleged that K.W. fabricated the events so she could stay with relatives in a more permissive environment. The court credited K.W.'s account of the events over mother's and found that the State met its burden of proving that mother hit K.W. The court rejected mother's argument that a single strike that causes a bruise is insufficient under the statute to amount to abuse. The court concluded that K.W. was CHINS because she was abused.

The proposed case plan had a goal of reunification with mother. K.W.'s attorney emphasized that K.W. did not want to return to mother's care and advocated for an alternative goal. The court indicated that it was considering adopting concurrent goals of reunification and another planned permanency living arrangement (APPLA). Mother objected to a concurrent goal. The court issued a disposition order continuing custody with DCF and set concurrent goals of reunification or APPLA. Mother filed this appeal.

"[T]he focus of a CHINS proceeding is the welfare of the child." In re B.R., 2014 VT 37, ¶ 13, 196 Vt. 304 (quotation omitted). The State has the burden of proving the allegations in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 V.S.A. § 5315(a). "On review, we will uphold the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and the court's legal...