## Facts

- A.C., a minor, was adjudicated an “unmanageable child” on January 16, 1974.
- After a dispositional hearing, the court issued an order dated January 31, 1974 transferring A.C.’s legal custody to the Commissioner of Rehabilitation, with a recommended placement.
- On July 17, 1975, A.C.’s mother requested a review hearing under 33 V.S.A. § 659, alleging changed circumstances warranting modification of the disposition.
- The district court held a review hearing and found, in substance, that no change of circumstances justified modifying the original custody disposition.
- A.C. and her mother appealed, arguing procedural errors at the review hearing, including: (1) improper placement of the burden on the mother as movant, (2) refusal to allow participation by the guardian ad litem, and (3) refusal to allow A.C.’s counsel to present closing argument.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by treating the mother as bearing the burden at the review hearing by requiring her to present first.
2. Whether limits on participation by the guardian ad litem required reversal.
3. Whether denying defense counsel an opportunity for closing argument violated the juvenile’s right to effective assistance of counsel or otherwise denied due process.
4. Whether the evidence required modification of the disposition based on changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order continuing custody with the Commissioner of Rehabilitation.
- The court held that the trial judge’s direction that the moving party proceed first was, at most, an order-of-proof ruling and did not prevent any party from presenting evidence; any error was nonprejudicial.
- The claim regarding the guardian ad litem was not preserved because the record showed no objection on that ground.
- The denial of closing argument did not, on this record, deprive A.C. of effective assistance of counsel or a fair hearing because counsel otherwise participated meaningfully through examination, cross-examination, and advocacy during the proceeding.
- The court upheld the finding that no change of circumstances justified modifying the original disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile proceedings, as to the right to counsel, are generally treated by statute and case law on much the same footing as criminal proceedings, while still operating within a civil, rehabilitative framework.
- Review hearings under 33 V.S.A. §§ 658–659 are structured to provide procedures substantially corresponding to those used at initial juvenile proceedings, subject to statutory exceptions.
- Procedural irregularities in juvenile review hearings warrant reversal only upon a showing that substantial rights were affected, including that a party was prevented from presenting evidence or denied a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Appellate review of claimed procedural error generally requires preservation in the trial court; unpreserved objections typically will not support reversal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the refusal to modify A.C.’s custody disposition, holding that alleged procedural defects at the juvenile review hearing—order of proof, asserted limits on guardian ad litem participation, and denial of closing argument—did not justify reversal absent preserved objection and a showing of prejudice or denial of a fair hearing.


In re A.C., 134 Vt. 284, 357 A.2d 536 (Vt. 1976)