Two cases on Valentine's Day. I haven't thought of a "clever" link between the first case and Valentine's Day and it's probably better that I don't.
Our first case is an appeal from a substantiation. M.R., while a minor himself, was accused of sexually abusing another kid. The Department for Children and Families (DCF) substantiated him and put him on "the list." DCF sent the substantiation notice to M.R.'s dad, not to M.R. directly, and not to mom. Dad asked for a review but then (allegedly) didn't show up for the review. M.R. then missed the deadline to appeal the decision. When he eventually tried to appeal, the Human Services Board (HSB) granted DCF's motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds.
M.R. appeals. He argues that the law says he should've gotten the notice directly and that it should've been sent to both parents, not just dad. He also argues that not telling him directly violated his constitutional rights. Finally, he argues that there was a good reason for his late appeal and that the HSB should have waived the deadline.
SCOV disagrees. First, SCOV reasons that M.R. didn't bring up the notice-to-him-and-both-parents issue below so it's not going there today. Next SCOV concludes that telling dad is good enough to satisfy due process rights for a minor. SCOV reasons that sending notice to one parent "is reasonably calculated to apprise the minor and his parents of the situation and subsequent rights to request reviews." Hmm. It also notes that the government has a reasonable interest in maintaining these lists. M.R.'s due process argument does not carry the day.
SCOV also rejects M.R.'s good cause-for-waiver argument. SCOV reasons that M.R.'s dad being busy and stressed and in the middle of a difficult divorce and not remembering getting the letter aren't good enough excuses. So the HSB was justified in not waiving the appeal deadline for good cause. In re M.R., 2025 VT 6.
Next up, we have a separation of powers issue of the "advice and consent" variety. Governor Scott tried to get the senate's consent to his appointment of Zoie Saunders as Secretary of Education in April 2024 (while the legislature was not in session). It declined the invitation. The same day the senate declined to confirm Saunders, Governor Scott appointed her as "interim secretary" until, well, "now-ish" without the Senate's approval. So, two state senators sued Governor Scott, claiming he overstepped his authori-tie.
Now, Governor Scott responded that he had the constitutional power to make temporary appointments without senate approval. But anyway, while the case was ongoing, in November 2024, the Governor did a new appointment of Saunders during a legislative recess, and sent to the senate to confirm.
Before the second appointment, however, the trial court dismissed the complaint. It basically reasoned that the governor has appointment powers and that the advice-and-consent requirement applies to permanent appointments, not temporary ones.
The senators appeal and Governor Scott cross appeals.
SCOV says the whole thing is moot. It rejects the senators' arguments that Saunders' actions between the appointments should be considered invalid because there ain't no good legal argument for this.
Chief Justice Reiber joined by Justice Waples concurs, reasoning that the appeal is moot. But the concurrence is notable for waxing poetic about the importance of separation of powers, checks and balances in government. There's even a footnote citing James Madison on the foibles of men versus angels running governments. McCormack v. Scott, 2025 VT 7.
Comments
Post a Comment