In re Lawrence
| Decision Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2021-039 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re Appeal of Ramona Lawrence* |
Note: 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.
Human Services Board
DOCKET NO. B-09/20-569
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Applicant appeals the Human Services Board's decision affirming a determination by the Department for Children and Families (DCF) imposing a period of ineligibility for housing assistance under the General Assistance (GA) program. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because it is moot.
The GA program provides emergency housing assistance for homeless Vermonters. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature authorized DCF to waive or vary its rules to provide greater assistance to such individuals. In response, in August 2020, DCF issued a General/Emergency Temporary Housing Waiver and Variance of Rules (2020 GA Rules). Under 2020 GA Rule 120, a person asked to leave a hotel or motel for use of lighted tobacco products on the property would be subject to a fifteen-day period of ineligibility, which could be reduced to seven days if the person was working to find permanent housing. The rule provided that a person placed on a period of ineligibility who asked for a fair hearing could ask to be housed while awaiting the recommendation from the fair hearing officer.
Applicant is sixty-six years old and homeless. The record shows that during 2020, applicant applied for and received housing through the GA program at area motels for herself and, at times, a caregiver. Relevant here, she was approved for a temporary stay at a motel from September 4 to October 1, 2020. On September 11, applicant was asked to leave the motel based on a violation of the motel's no-smoking policy. Applicant contacted DCF to obtain alternative housing. DCF denied her request, concluding that she was subject to a period of ineligibility under the 2020 GA Rules. Applicant requested a fair hearing before the Board, which was scheduled for September 17. She did not appear on that date. The Board rescheduled the hearing for September 25. The hearing began that day and concluded on September 28. Applicant appeared and was represented by counsel. The Board issued a written decision on October 23, 2020, affirming DCF's imposition of a seven-day period of ineligibility from September 30 to October 6, 2020.
The Board subsequently reopened the appeal for the limited purpose of considering whether applicant had been improperly denied housing pending the September hearing. It found that after applicant requested a fair hearing before the Board, she was granted housing on September 15 and 16, but did not appear at the motel. She was not granted housing for the rest of September. The Board found that applicant was improperly denied housing for the nights of September 28 and 29 while the Board's decision was pending, but was not otherwise entitled to housing during September. The Board disagreed that applicant had been denied due process and declined to vacate the period of ineligibility based on the denial of housing. Instead, it directed DCF to enter a case note that applicant was entitled to a credit of two days' housing if she should again be disqualified from temporary housing. This appeal followed.
On appeal, applicant argues that DCF violated 2020 GA Rule 120 and her right to due process by denying her housing during the pendency of her appeal to the Board. She argues that this violation entitles her to have the period of ineligibility removed from her record. She further argues that the Board's decision that she violated program rules was unsupported by admissible evidence.
DCF argues that this matter is moot because the period of ineligibility has expired and the program rules have been amended such that the September 2020 penalty will not affect applicant's future eligibility for housing assistance. "An issue becomes moot once either the issue is no longer 'live' or 'the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' " In re Durkee, 2017 VT 49, ¶ 11, 205 Vt. 11 (quoting State v. Curry, 2009 VT 89, ¶ 11, 186 Vt. 623 (mem.)). "The actual controversy must be present at all stages of review, not just when the case was filed." In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 67 (1997). Here, applicant's period of ineligibility expired on October 6, 2020, and she subsequently received housing assistance from DCF. Thus, her appeal is moot unless an exception to mootness applies.
There are two exceptions to mootness: "when negative collateral consequences are likely to result from the action being reviewed," or "when the underlying situation is capable of repetition, yet evades review." Id. Applicant argues that both exceptions apply here because the challenged action is too short for adequate review and is likely to occur again, and because if her first period of ineligibility is upheld, she will be subject to a longer period of ineligibility for subsequent violations. We conclude that neither exception applies here due to DCF's recent amendments to the GA program rules and associated guidance.
In June 2021, DCF amended the emergency housing rules and procedures governing the motel voucher program. See Dep't for Children and Families, Emergency Housing Waiver and Variance of Rules (June 1, 2021), https://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/CVD19/ESD/Emergency-Housing-Rules-6-1-21.pdf [https://perma.cc/RXG7-AFQV] [hereinafter Emergency Housing Rules]; Dep't for Children and Families, General Assistance COVID-19 Procedures (June 1, 2021), https://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/CVD19/ESD/GA-COVID-Procedures-6-1-21.pdf [https://perma.cc/A7Z6-W8ZS] [hereinafter 2021 GA COVID-19 Procedures]. New Emergency Housing Rule EH-765 continues to impose a fifteen-day period of ineligibility for a first...
To continue reading
Request your trial