In re MA, 2012 VT
103 (mem.).
We have said it before, family law, particularly where a
child is involved, is often the most depressing field of law with few winners
and multiple losers.
Today’s case is of a piece.
Mother and Father split up in 2007, and the family court
awarded Mother sole physical custody of the child, MA. Father had visitation rights every other
weekend and holidays. Shortly
thereafter, Father began seeing someone else.
Not long after the divorce became final, Mother reported Father
and his partner for abusing MA. DCF
investigated and found no basis for a claim and closed the matter.
Soon, Mother filed another claim, against Father’s
partner. Again DCF investigated, found
no evidence of the claim, and closed the file.
This continued again and again over the next three
years. In total Mother made over 27
separate reports to DCF about either Father’s or Father’s partner’s alleged
abuse of MA. In each and every case, DCF
found no substantiating evidence and closed the file. On one occasion, DCF made a preliminary
finding of potential abuse, but they quickly rescinded this finding and closed
that file as well.
Mother did not limit her reporting to DCF. In all, she reported Father or Father’s
partner to DCF, various doctors, and other professionals over 66 times during the
three-year period.
Eventually, the complaints raised the concerns of DCF who
filed a Child-in Need of Care or Support (CHINS) petition with the family
court. A hearing was held, and the
evidence showed that Mother’s constant reporting was having a negative effect
on MA and on MA’s relationship with his Father and that the actions were
putting MA at risk.
Based on two expert witnesses, who testified that they had
found no evidence of abuse but substantial evidence that someone was coaching
MA to report against his Father and Father’s partner, the trial court issued a
decision that Mother’s false reporting was putting MA at risk. The trial court ruled that the State had
established that MA lacked the “care necessary for his well-being.”
The present appeal followed.
Mother appears to have raised only one argument, namely that the evidence
of false reporting was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that MA
lacked the care necessary for his well-being and that his welfare was at stake.
The SCOV is not buying this argument. The SCOV starts by noting that reporting
abuse is encouraged. It also accepts the
fact that multiple abuse reports are not necessarily a basis for a CHINS
determination—particularly if the reporting parent shows some awareness and
ability to stop false reporting. But the
facts here demonstrate a deep-seated commitment to reporting and coaching MA to
make such reports. They have necessarily
involved hundreds of hours focusing MA and making him recount every event until
he has done so in a manner that fits Mother’s view of what likely happened.
This is enough to trigger a CHINS petition and to support
the trial court’s determination. The
depth of Mother’s commitment (some might say pathology) along with the large
amount of time that MA has had to commit to these inquiries, give rise to
conclusions made by the trial court.
This leads the SCOV to affirm that the trial court was
within both the law and reason to conclude that Mother’s actions had given rise
to a CHINS situation.
End of story.
The decision does not make clear what the next steps in this
case likely are. We can suspect that the
decision will pave the way to a custody transfer or potentially a termination
proceeding. At the very least, DCF will,
for the foreseeable future, be overseeing Mother’s parenting activities and
likely granting MA more time with Father.
Whatever the result, it looks like everyone loses this round.
Comments
Post a Comment