Background
In February 2025, the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) received a report of substance misuse and the presence of unsafe individuals in the home where a mother was solely caring for her three young children, born in October 2018, June 2020, and January 2022. DCF had previously closed a case involving the same mother related to substance use concerns. When a DCF worker made an unannounced home visit, the worker found the children in the care of individuals with their own open DCF matters, and upon the mother’s return, observed her slurring her words, appearing disconnected, and showing signs of physical deterioration. A Lyndonville police officer separately testified that he observed the mother’s vehicle at a house known to be linked to drug activity on twelve occasions over a six-month period preceding the filing of the petition.
The State filed a CHINS petition in the Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Family Division, alleging the children were without proper parental care under 33 V.S.A. § 5102(3)(B). Mother initially agreed to place the children temporarily with their grandmother but then removed them from that arrangement and refused to sign a formal safety plan. When DCF made a follow-up visit, the mother would not permit the worker to assess the children or view the home’s interior, though she acknowledged she had been drinking more than usual.
After a contested two-day merits hearing, the family court adjudicated all three children CHINS, finding that the presence of unsafe caregivers, evidence of maternal substance use, and the mother’s sustained refusal to participate in safety planning collectively created a risk of harm to the young children. Mother appealed, arguing the court’s findings were legally insufficient to support the CHINS determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the CHINS adjudication in an unpublished three-justice panel entry order. The court rejected the mother’s central argument that the family court improperly rested its finding on her non-cooperation with DCF rather than on the children’s actual safety. While acknowledging that a parent’s reluctance to engage with DCF is not by itself sufficient to establish CHINS, the court held that the family court appropriately treated non-cooperation as one of several independent risk factors — not as a standalone basis — and that the totality of the evidence amply supported the conclusion that the children faced a risk of harm.
The court also addressed the mother’s argument that there was no direct evidence of drug use and that the officer’s testimony about the drug house related to events occurring after the CHINS petition was filed. The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of substance use — including DCF’s prior case history, the report to DCF, and the worker’s firsthand observations of the mother’s behavior and appearance — and clarified that the family court expressly limited its reliance on the officer’s testimony to the mother’s twelve visits to the drug house in the months before the petition was filed, not to evidence uncovered during the subsequent search.
The court further rejected the mother’s claim that the family court erroneously found she violated a formal safety plan, noting that the CHINS determination did not rest on that finding but rather on the established risks arising from the mother’s substance use concerns and her refusal to allow DCF to assess the children’s welfare.
Key Takeaways
- A CHINS finding does not require proof of actual harm to children; a demonstrated risk of harm is sufficient under Vermont law. See In re J.C., 2016 VT 9, ¶ 7.
- A parent’s refusal to cooperate with DCF safety planning is a relevant and legitimate factor in a CHINS analysis, provided it is not the sole basis for the adjudication.
- Circumstantial evidence of parental substance use — including a prior DCF case history, third-party reports, and a caseworker’s direct observations — can support a CHINS determination even in the absence of direct evidence such as a positive drug test.
- Courts conducting CHINS proceedings may only rely on circumstances known prior to the filing of the petition; evidence of post-petition events must be excluded or carefully cabined.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Vermont family courts may look to the totality of circumstances surrounding a household — including a parent’s track record with DCF, observable signs of impairment, and the presence of individuals with known substance-use histories — when evaluating whether children face a risk of harm sufficient to support a CHINS adjudication. Practitioners representing parents in CHINS proceedings should note the court’s treatment of non-cooperation with DCF: while not independently dispositive, a parent’s sustained refusal to engage with safety planning will be weighed against them and can tip the balance when combined with other risk indicators.
Although this is an unpublished three-justice panel decision carrying no precedential weight before Vermont tribunals, it illustrates how Vermont courts apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in contested CHINS merits hearings where direct evidence of parental misconduct is limited but circumstantial evidence and observed parental behavior paint a consistent picture of risk to young children.