“One Track, Two Standards” – Vermont Supreme Court Endorses Combined Merits / Temporary-Care Hearings and Re-affirms Termination of Parental Rights at Initial Disposition without a Reasonable-Efforts Finding

Introduction

In In re J.B., D.B., E.B., Juveniles, 2025 VT ___, the Vermont Supreme Court confronted a multi-faceted appeal arising from the termination of parental rights (TPR) of a mother and father to three minor children. The parents challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the initial “children in need of care or supervision” (CHINS) adjudication, (2) the trial court’s best-interests analysis at the TPR stage, (3) the legality of combining the merits and temporary-care hearings, (4) the alleged absence of “reasonable efforts” by the Department for Children and Families (DCF), and (5) an alleged conflict of interest on the part of the children’s attorney.

The Supreme Court not only affirmed the Family Division but, in doing so, clarified two procedural questions that practitioners had treated as open or unsettled:

Family courts may combine merits and temporary-care hearings in CHINS matters, so long as each issue is adjudicated under its proper evidentiary standard.
When TPR is sought at initial disposition, Vermont law does not require either (a) a prior, court-approved disposition plan or (b) an explicit finding that DCF made “reasonable efforts” at reunification.

Summary of the Judgment

After recounting extensive factual findings—ranging from chronic school absence, poor hygiene, obesity, and unsafe home conditions, to parents’ failure to cooperate with services—the trial court terminated parental rights at initial disposition. The Supreme Court upheld:

The CHINS finding (preponderance standard) for all three children.
The trial court’s discretionary decision to combine the merits and temporary-care hearings.
The best-interests determination supporting TPR, stressing the parents’ inability to resume parenting within a reasonable time.
The decision to proceed without a separate reasonable-efforts finding.
The ruling that no actual conflict of interest existed for the children’s attorney despite differing child preferences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

In re L.M., 2014 VT 17 – permitted consideration of circumstances leading up to the CHINS petition; relied upon to uphold the factual breadth of the trial court’s findings.
In re D.B., 2003 VT 81 (mem.) & In re A.F., 160 Vt. 175 (1993) – articulated the clearly-erroneous and witness-credibility deferential standards of review; served as the lens for affirming numerous factual findings.
In re J.T., 166 Vt. 173 (1997) – foundational authority allowing TPR at initial disposition; squarely applied to reject parents’ argument that premature termination is disallowed.
In re C.P., 2012 VT 100 & In re D.F., 2018 VT 132 – confirmed that a reasonable-efforts finding is not a prerequisite to termination; cited to dispose of the parents’ reasonable-efforts claim.
In re L.H., 2018 VT 4 – established “actual conflict” standard for joint child representation; used to uphold the single attorney’s continued representation of all siblings.

Legal Reasoning

Combination of Hearings
Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), incorporated by V.R.F.P. 2(a), authorizes a court to consolidate actions with common issues of law or fact. The Supreme Court reasoned that nothing in 33 V.S.A. §§ 5307 or 5315 prohibits combining hearings; what matters is that the judge apply the correct standard of proof (preponderance) at merits and allow full confrontation rights (no hearsay). The record showed the trial judge kept the standards distinct.
Sufficiency of CHINS Evidence
Applying the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, the Court found ample support for chronic truancy, poor hygiene, unsanitary housing, and nutritional neglect. Even the contested label “morbid obesity” was deemed harmless because the key finding concerned unhealthy weight and parental inaction, not a medical diagnosis.
Best-Interests Analysis
The Court reiterated that the third statutory factor—likelihood of resuming parental duties within a reasonable time—remains paramount. The parents’ sustained lack of insight, refusal to cooperate with Family Time Coaching, and failure to improve home conditions outweighed their affection for the children.
Reasonable-Efforts Argument
Re-emphasizing C.P. and D.F., the Court held that a reasonable-efforts finding is not a statutory prerequisite when termination occurs at the first disposition hearing.
Conflict-of-Interest Claim
Because an “actual conflict” requires that counsel’s duty to one client adversely affects the other, the mere existence of different preferences among siblings did not suffice. The issue was also procedurally defaulted because it was not raised below.

Impact of the Judgment

Procedural Streamlining: Trial courts may confidently schedule a single, consolidated hearing for both merits and temporary care, improving judicial economy without risking reversal—so long as evidentiary lines are respected.
Litigation Strategy: Parents’ counsel must prepare to present a full merits defense even when notice appears limited to temporary care; conversely, the State may craft simultaneous presentations anticipating consolidation.
Reasonable-Efforts Discourse: The Court’s reaffirmation forecloses arguments that lack of a reasonable-efforts finding alone can unwind an initial-disposition TPR, unless the Legislature intervenes.
Children’s Counsel: Joint representation remains permissible until demonstrably harmful, easing the appointment burden on Vermont’s GAL and attorney pools.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CHINS (Children in Need of Care or Supervision): A legal status a court confers when a child lacks adequate parental care or is at risk of harm. It is not a finding of parental criminality but a civil protective measure.
Temporary-Care Hearing: An expedited hearing, usually within 72 hours of removal, to decide who will care for the child while litigation proceeds. Hearsay is admissible if deemed “reliable.”
Merits Hearing: Analogous to a civil trial on liability; here, the State must prove CHINS status by a preponderance and cannot rely on hearsay.
Initial Disposition: The first formal plan the court adopts after a CHINS adjudication. In Vermont, the plan may recommend immediate TPR if evidence supports it.
Reasonable Efforts: The obligation (under federal funding rules and many state laws) for child-welfare agencies to try to reunify families before seeking TPR. Vermont conditionally separates this finding from initial-disposition TPRs, per caselaw.
Actual Conflict of Interest: A conflict that actively impairs an attorney’s representation, not merely a potential divergence of wishes. Without such impairment, disqualification is unwarranted.

Conclusion

In re J.B., D.B., E.B. cements two pragmatic procedural norms in Vermont’s juvenile jurisprudence: (1) courts may consolidate merits and temporary-care hearings in CHINS matters, and (2) initial-disposition terminations do not hinge on reasonable-efforts findings or previously approved case plans. The opinion also reinforces deferential appellate review of trial court fact-finding and provides a clear template for evaluating alleged conflicts of interest in multi-child representation. Practitioners should expect swifter timelines and fewer procedural escape hatches when parenting deficiencies are severe and longstanding. Legislators, meanwhile, may revisit the statutory landscape if broader reasonable-efforts safeguards are desired. Ultimately, the decision prioritises child safety and permanency over procedural formalism, signaling the Court’s continued willingness to endorse decisive action in the face of chronic parental non-compliance.