Skip to main content

In re J.S.

Citations

  • 153 Vt. 365
  • 571 A.2d 658
  • 1989 Vt. LEXIS 265

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a change in child’s placement alone is not sufficient to warrant a change in disposition
  • holding juvenile court lacked authority to order child protection agency to comply with federal Adoption Assistance Act provision requiring periodic administrative reviews in context of protective-order hearing
  • “The juvenile court’s decision will stand on appellate review unless the record indicates that the court exercised its discretion for clearly untenable reasons or to an extent clearly unreasonable.”
  • \The juvenile court's decision will stand on appellate review unless the record indicates that the court exercised its discretion for clearly untenable reasons or to an extent clearly unreasonable.\
  • statute governing juvenile procedures “allocates power between the legal custodian and the juvenile court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Barney, Dooley, Gibson, Peck, Ret

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.