Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal stems from a dispute regarding the parties’ obligations with respect to several tax liens discovered post-divorce in light of two hold-harmless provisions in a final divorce decree. Wife argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the hold-harmless and indemnification provisions and failing to address the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the tax liens. After review of the decree and the provisions at issue here, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed, and accordingly reversed and remanded so the trial court could address wife’s claims. View "Flanagan v. duMont" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Solomon appealed the dismissal, without consideration of the merits, of her petition for dissolution of a nonresident civil union. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a civil union in 2001 in Brattleboro, Vermont, but both resided in Wake County, North Carolina. The parties were separated by May 2014. The parties had no children. In 2015, they decided to dissolve their civil union and filed an uncontested complaint in Vermont, accompanied by a final stipulation as required by 15 V.S.A. 1206(b). The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the parties failed to produce evidence that they attempted to obtain a dissolution of the civil union in North Carolina. The court expressed concern that if Vermont courts “continue[d] to accept these filings and allow courts in other states to ignore precedent [set by Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2608 (2015)], the situation [would] never be resolved.” Because civil marriage and civil unions remained legally distinct entities in Vermont and because "Obergefell" mandated that states recognize only same-sex marriage, uncertainty remained as to whether Obergefell required other states to recognize and dissolve civil unions established in Vermont. The parties here followed the section 1206(b) mandates. Plaintiff contended that the provided affidavit satisfied the “acknowledgment” required by § 1206(b), and thus the court erred when it refused to consider the issue and held that North Carolina was the proper venue for all filings and appeals. The Vermont Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff, and reversed and remanded the trial court's dismissal. View "Solomon v. Guidry" on Justia Law

Mother appealed a superior court order finding that her proposed relocation and parents’ breakdown in communication were changed circumstances warranting modification of parental rights and responsibilities and transferring sole legal and physical responsibilities of their autistic son to father. She argued that the court erred in finding a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that the decision to modify the extant custody agreement was not in the best interests of the child. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s finding of changed circumstances with respect to the court’s award of legal rights and responsibilities to father based on the breakdown in parental cooperation, but reversed and remanded the modification in the order with respect to physical rights and responsibilities and parent-child contact. View "Wener v. Wener" on Justia Law

B.G. was born in September 2006. Mother and father separated in 2007. B.G. has a younger half-sister, C.B., born in August 2009. Mother’s relationships with B.G.’s father and her two subsequent partners, including C.B.’s father, were abusive. In 2010, mother was prescribed pain medication, and this led to a heroin addiction. Mother often left B.G. with his paternal grandfather and step-grandmother. In 2011, when mother planned to move to New York, grandparents began caring for B.G. full time. B.G.’s step-grandmother has been responsible for all interactions with school, doctors, dentists, and counselors. Mother did not participate in any of these aspects of B.G.’s life. B.G. witnessed the domestic violence in mother’s relationships even after 2011 when his time with mother was quite limited. In January 2014, the court removed C.B. from mother’s home. The court issued a Temporary Custody Order transferring custody of the half-sister to grandparents with protective supervision by the Department for Children and Families (DCF). There was no order issued pertaining to B.G., but the court noted that there was an agreement reached by DCF, mother, and step-grandmother that if mother tried to remove B.G. from step-grandmother’s care, DCF would be notified and would seek a conditional custody order. Mother did not progress past supervised visits with C.B. In January 2015, the State filed a petition alleging B.G. was CHINS for lack of proper parental care. Mother appealed the family court’s order concluding that B.G. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS), arguing that the court erred in finding that B.G. was abandoned or without proper parental care because mother made arrangements for B.G.’s care. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the CHINS adjudication on the basis that B.G. was abandoned. View "In re B.G." on Justia Law

Father filed a parentage action on March 19, 2015. On April 8, 2015, mother filed a stipulation of parentage and a motion that she be granted sole parental rights and responsibilities for the children and that father be denied any right to parent-child contact. Father appealed a Family Division order that awarded mother sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities but did not award father any parent-child contact at the time. The order contained a provision permitting father to file a motion for parent-child contact, even without any change in circumstances, within forty-five days after the pending criminal charges against him had been resolved. On appeal, father argued that: (1) the court effectively terminated his parental rights without finding by clear and convincing evidence that doing so was in the best interests of the children; and (2) that the court erred in creating a prerequisite to the resumption of contact (that is, the resolution of the criminal charges) beyond his control. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Groves v. Green" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's consideration centered on the circumstances a child support order could compel an obligor parent whose income was below the self-support reserve to make monthly payments toward outstanding arrearages on a child support surcharge. Father appealed pro se a family court order affirming a magistrate’s decision to deny his motion to modify a child support order that related solely to outstanding arrearages owed for surcharges. He argued that because his limited income from social security disability benefits was below the self-support reserve, he should not have been ordered to make $50 monthly payments toward outstanding surcharges. The magistrate considered the possibility of reducing or eliminating father’s monthly payment obligation, as opposed to discharging the underlying judgment. The magistrate noted that father’s living circumstances had changed on account of a recent divorce and that his income had fallen. However, the magistrate found that his modest monthly income was still sufficient to meet his modest expenses and allow him to continue paying $50 per month toward his surcharge arrearages. In addition, the magistrate found that father’s consistent payment of the $50 per month over the course of years supported the finding that he was, in fact, able to afford the payment. For these reasons, the magistrate declined to reduce father’s monthly surcharge arrearage payment. The statute relating to computation of a parent’s support obligation provided that if a noncustodial parent’s available income is less than the self-support reserve, the court shall use its discretion in determining support and shall require payment of a nominal support amount. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The magistrate made no findings that mother had shown good cause why the payment of arrears should be ordered notwithstanding father’s monthly income below the self-support reserve. Nor did the magistrate make any findings from which we might infer a determination of good cause, such as a finding that, notwithstanding his low monthly income, father has access to significant assets, or a finding that for some other reason this case was extraordinary. View "Leitgeb v. Leitgeb" on Justia Law

Husband appealed a final divorce order, arguing that the Family Division: (1) inequitably divided the marital assets; (2) committed reversible errors of fact; and (3) issued a decision based on impermissible bias. Finding no reversible error in the Family Division's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Casavant (Allen) v. Allen" on Justia Law

May 7, 2015 was the second day of Kenneth and Melissa Coons' divorce hearing. Near the end of the hearing, the trial court called a brief recess and asked counsel to meet in chambers. According to the trial court, during the meeting, it told the parties that “it would not and could not distribute [husband’s] military retirement because he had not yet served the requisite number of years to vest in the system. In short, there was not yet anything to distribute because [husband] had no entitlement to the benefit.” The trial court indicated that the benefits could be distributed only once they vested; because husband was ten months shy of a full twenty years of service as of the final hearing date, there was nothing to distribute. Following this conference in chambers, the parties entered into an stipulation resolving all outstanding issues. With respect to property division, wife agreed to accept a lump-sum payment of $15,000 and waived any claims to husband’s expected but not-yet-vested military retirement benefit. Wife affirmed on the record her satisfaction with the stipulation, and the trial court incorporated the stipulation into the final divorce decree. The court signed the final order the next day. Wife sought to set aside the stipulated final order for divorce on the ground that she entered into the agreement in reliance on that in-chambers “weather report” in which the trial judge misstated the applicable law. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in declining to set aside the stipulation, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coons v. Coons" on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute were the parents of a daughter, born in August 2004. The parties were living in Vermont and obtained a final parentage order in December 2012: Mother was awarded sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities; father was awarded significant parent-child contact (PCC). In October 2013, the court granted father’s motion to enforce his parent-child contact. The court warned mother that if she withheld or denied father’s right to contact in the future, it would seriously consider modifying parental rights and responsibilities. The court was persuaded that mother had no ability or disposition to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with father, and that it was in the child’s best interests to have frequent and continuing contact with him. In August 2014, mother and daughter moved to Virginia. Father remained in Vermont. By agreement, father was to be provided with PCC during Christmas 2014 and during the early spring and summer of 2015. The Christmas visitation did not occur. In April 2015, father moved to enforce the PCC order. Father asserted that he had been unable to schedule a spring visit because mother refused to tell him where the child lived and which school she attended. In 2015, father filed emergency motions for sanctions and for enforcement, indicating that mother was not cooperating with father's requests. Shortly before father’s second filing, mother asked the court to relinquish jurisdiction over this case to Virginia courts. Mother argued that she and the child no longer had a significant connection to Vermont and that the “center of gravity regarding the child’s care, protection, schooling and personal relationships center fully in Virginia.” Mother appealed the trial court’s imposition of sanctions against her and its denial of her request that Vermont relinquish jurisdiction over this case to Virginia. She argued that the evidence did not support the imposition of sanctions and that the court erred in evaluating her jurisdictional request. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ward v. LaRue" on Justia Law

J.W. was adjudged child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) because his mother would not adequately protect J.W. from father if the child was returned to mother’s care. Mother did not appeal this adjudication, rather father appealed, arguing that the court “usurped the executive role of investigation and prosecution” by taking judicial notice of his criminal record and filings related to a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order that mother obtained against him. He argued that the court’s findings did not support its conclusion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re J.W." on Justia Law