Vermont Supreme Court rules in favor of state in Newbury juvenile facility case

The Vermont Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday that could clear the way for the state Department for Children and Families’ plan to open a secure facility to house youths involved in the criminal justice system in Newbury.

The proposal has faced stiff local opposition as it has worked its way through local zoning and legal proceedings. 

The six-person facility in Newbury was proposed to replace the state’s only juvenile detention facility, Woodside, located in Essex. That facility closed in 2020 following accusations of excessive force and improper use of restraints and seclusion.

The resulting lack of beds in Vermont for juveniles involved in the criminal system has led the state to place minors in adult correctional facilities or send them to out-of-state facilities.

Arguments in May before the high court’s five justices focused on whether the proposed Newbury facility would be a “juvenile detention center” for children in the juvenile justice system, as the town had argued, or a “group home” for children with disabilities, as the state Department for Children and Families had contended. The latter would limit the town zoning board’s ability to prevent its development, planned at a former bed-and-breakfast on a Class IV dirt road. 

In a 4-1 decision released Thursday, the Supreme Court justices sided with the state.

“The determinative factor under the statute is whether the group home is for juveniles with disabilities,” Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote in the majority opinion.  

“The Commissioner’s affidavit confirms that the purpose of the project is to provide treatment for youth who have a disability,” Reiber added, referring to testimony in the case given by the DCF commissioner. “The fact that the juveniles who will be placed in the facility are also justice-involved does not negate their disability.”

The law, Reiber wrote, does not preclude a group home from having security features. 

“The security features are fully consistent with the undisputed evidence that the overarching purpose of the facility is to provide treatment in the least-restrictive environment,” the chief justice wrote. “This is a critical need, and for some youth, stabilization may depend on the availability of having both a secure and therapeutic environment.” 

Justice Karen Carroll issued a stinging dissenting opinion, challenging the reasoning of her colleagues in reaching their conclusion.  

“In my view, the majority has interpreted group home to be a term capable of meeting any use DCF determines is appropriate,” Carroll wrote, later adding, “The proposed facility is exactly what DCF intends it to be: architecturally secure and designed to house pre- and post-dispositional juveniles who present a danger to themselves and to the public.”

Carroll also wrote that it was “undisputed” that the Department for Children and Families intended to place “justice-involved juveniles” who have no disability at the facility.

“DCF cannot skirt that requirement by ‘regarding’ undiagnosed juveniles as having a disability because they are involved in the juvenile-justice system and because ‘98 percent of Vermont youth placed at Woodside from July 2018 through May 2021 met criteria for a disability’ as defined” by law, Carroll wrote. 

The town of Newbury’s attorney, James Barlow, said Thursday afternoon that there “is a possibility” the town could ask for reargument of the case before the Vermont Supreme Court. He said he would discuss that with the town’s selectboard members soon.

“The town’s deeply disappointed but not surprised by the majority’s decision,” Barlow said.

“We think that Justice Carroll’s dissent recognizes that this a juvenile detention facility and not a group home,” he added. “We appreciate that she took the time and effort to hold the majority to account for their decision.” 

Chris Winters, the DCF commissioner, said in an email Thursday afternoon he would provide a written statement in response to the decision later in the day. 

Any timeline for the project as the result of the decision was not immediately available Thursday afternoon. 

In 2021, the Newbury Development Review Board denied a permit for the facility. A state Environmental Court judge reversed that decision the following year, leading to the town’s appeal and the case landing before the Vermont Supreme Court. 

In a show of the strength of the town’s opposition to the proposal, Newbury residents in March voted 601-56 to send a message to state lawmakers they were against the facility opening at the planned location.

The site, some residents contended, was too remote for proper services to be provided to the youth. The town also had no police department, which some residents said raised public safety concerns. 

The property is owned by the Vermont Permanency Initiative, which would contract with DCF to administer the Newbury facility.