Vermont's child abuse and neglect proceedings have a
bifurcated nature. See In re L.S.,
147 Vt. 36, 38, 509 A.2d 1017, 1019 (1986).
First, there is a merits adjudication during which the State must prove
the allegations in the CHINS petition, and the court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence whether the child is abused or neglected. See 33 V.S.A. § 5315. Second, there is a
disposition hearing, which decides the terms of the child's placement and
protection. Id. § 5318(a). In this
case, a merits decision was entered on July 25, 2012, a disposition order was
entered on October 11, 2012, and Father filed a notice of appeal on November 8,
2011, seeking to appeal both the merits and the disposition orders. The
timeliness of father's appeal depends on two questions: whether a CHINS merits
decision is a final appealable order and whether failure to appeal that
decision within thirty days forecloses the right to later challenge it. We
conclude that the merits decision is a final order and that failure to bring an
appeal of that order within thirty days bars subsequent challenges to the
order. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we apply our decision
prospectively and reach the merits of father's appeal.
Generally, the test for finality is whether an order
has disposed of all matters before the court by settling the rights of the
parties. See In re A.D.T., 174 Vt.
369, 373, 817 A.2d 20, 24 (2002); In re
Petition No. 152 by Cent. Vt. Ry., Inc., 148 Vt. 177, 178, 530 A.2d 579,
580 (1987). Although a CHINS determination does not permanently resolve the
child-neglect proceeding, finality in juvenile proceedings is measured
differently from other types of cases. Because the policy of resolving the
child's status as quickly as possible, we hold the merits adjudication is a
final appealable order. In this case,
father appealed beyond the thirty-day time frame, and therefore his appeal of
the CHINS decision was untimely.
Father argues that this Court has routinely allowed
appeals of the merits after disposition, and that he should not be punished for
relying on those cases. We recognize that our jurisprudence regarding the
appropriate time to appeal CHINS determinations has not been consistent and
that the obligation to immediately appeal the decision was not evident. In these
circumstances it would be fundamentally unfair to foreclose father from
appealing the merits decision where important rights are at stake. See In re A.D.T., 174 Vt. 369, 375, 817
A.2d 20, 25 (2002) (reaching merits of parent’s untimely appeal of termination
order given important rights at stake). We, therefore, apply our decision
prospectively only, and reach the merits of father's appeal.
