In Re Z.L., Juvenile
This text of In Re Z.L., Juvenile (In Re Z.L., Juvenile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ENTRY ORDER
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2020-218
AUGUST TERM, 2020
In re Z.L., Juvenile (P.K., Mother*) } ORIGINAL JURISDICTION } } Superior Court, Bennington Unit } Family Division } } DOCKET NO. 126-11-13 Bnjv
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Petitioner’s request for extraordinary relief is dismissed as petitioner has not demonstrated that “there is no adequate remedy by appeal under these rules or by appeal or through proceedings for extraordinary relief in the superior courts.” V.R.A.P. 21(a)(3).
Petitioner has also requested appointment of counsel. Parents are entitled to counsel in “proceedings arising out of a petition brought in a juvenile court when the court deems the interests of justice require representation . . . including any subsequent proceedings arising from an order therein.” 13 V.S.A. § 5232(3). A petition for extraordinary relief is an original civil proceeding in the Supreme Court, V.R.A.P. 21(a)(1), and generally parties are not entitled to appointment of counsel in civil proceedings. In any event, because we conclude that there is no basis for petitioner to seek extraordinary relief as an original matter in this Court and dismiss her petitioner on that basis, we deny her request for counsel.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
Beth Robinson, Associate Justice
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice
Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Z.L., Juvenile, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zl-juvenile-vtsuperct-2020.