Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Raymond Harrington appealed the issuance of a relief-from-abuse order requiring him to have no contact with and stay a hundred feet away from plaintiff Melissa Scheffler (his sister), her residence, and their mother’s home. The trial court issued the order because it concluded that defendant stalked plaintiff, within the meaning of 12 V.S.A. 5131, by driving by her home on multiple occasions and honking his horn, which the court found constituted surveillance. On appeal, defendant argued his actions did not amount to surveillance because surveillance requires “an intent to engage in a close watch or observation.” To this, the Supreme Court agreed and reversed, because, based on the trial court’s findings, there was no evidence defendant was closely watching or observing plaintiff. View "Scheffler v. Harrington" on Justia Law

Parents appealed the termination of their rights in A.M. and G.M., ages five and four. Parents struggled with substance abuse and were incarcerated periodically during the underlying proceedings. In January 2018, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition alleging the children were in need of care or supervision (CHINS) based on parental neglect, including squalid living conditions, and parental substance-abuse concerns. The children were initially placed with their maternal grandmother pursuant to a conditional custody order (CCO), and then with mother pursuant to a CCO. In April 2018, with parents’ agreement, custody of the children was transferred to DCF. Parents stipulated that the children were CHINS, and following a June 2018 disposition hearing, the parties stipulated to continued DCF custody and to DCF’s disposition case plan, which contemplated reunification by November 2018 or adoption. Parents were required to take various action steps to achieve reunification. The children did not see mother after June 2018 and they stopped seeing father before that time. As of September 2018, the children were placed together in the same foster home. Appealing the ultimate termination of the parental rights to their children, Parents challenged the trial court's treatment of voluntary guardianship petitions filed during the pendency of the juvenile proceedings. Mother also argued the court erred in terminating her rights. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "In re A.M. & G.M." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to modify the parties’ parenting schedule. The parties were married in 2012. Plaintiff gave birth to their child in 2015, and defendant adopted the child through a second-parent adoption that was final in October 2016. The parties ended their sexual relationship in January 2017, but continued to live together and act as co-parents. In November 2017, the parties signed a “Marital Settlement Agreement” with the help of an application called “Wevorce.” In negotiating the agreement, they did not consult with lawyers or third parties, except for one half-hour consultation with “a lawyer on Church Street.” At the same time, they signed a court form titled “Agreement on Parental Rights and Responsibilities, Parent Child Contact and Provisions Relating to Children.” Plaintiff filed for divorce in December 2017, and submitted the parties’ stipulation to waive final hearing. The parties were still living together and sharing in the child’s care when they commenced the divorce action. The divorce was finalized in July 2018 at an uncontested hearing before the family division. Both parties represented themselves. At the time and following the divorce, they continued to live in the same house and to share care of the child. In November 2018, plaintiff moved out and became reluctant to allow defendant time with the child. Plaintiff had not discussed this “total move” with defendant beforehand. In January 2019, defendant filed a motion to modify parent-child contact on the ground that “[t]here has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances in that the parent and child are no longer all living in the same household and there is no schedule for any parent child contact for Defendant.” Plaintiff opposed the motion to modify. When the request was granted, Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) holding a hearing on the motion to modify when a prior judge had determined that the case should proceed as a motion for relief from judgment; (2) finding that there was a real and unanticipated change in circumstances; and (3) assessing the best interests of the child. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Fabiano v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Father appealed a family division order terminating his parental rights to his son C.B., born in August 2016. The State filed a petition alleging that C.B. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) in October 2017 based on allegations that father had repeatedly engaged in domestic violence and mother continued to allow father to be around her and C.B. despite repeated abuse and court orders barring contact. A January 2018 order gave father the right to supervised parent-child contact, but he did not follow through and no visits took place. Father had a lengthy criminal history including a conviction for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At the time of the final hearing, he had several charges still pending. Father required safe housing, employment, therapy, parenting classes, and time to develop a relationship with C.B. Given father’s lack of progress towards achieving case-plan goals, the trial court found there was no possibility he could safely parent C.B. in a time reasonable for C.B., given C.B.’s need for permanency, thus termination of his rights was granted. Father alleged on appeal that the court committed several errors related to paternal grandmother’s requests for a guardianship of C.B. in the probate division, and for visitation with C.B. in the family division. Father also claimed the court deprived him of standing at the merits stage, failed to assign him counsel, and erred in not directing a suitability assessment of paternal grandmother at the initial temporary-care hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re C.B., Juvenile" on Justia Law

Father, Joe Golden, challenged a family division magistrate’s order requiring him to continue paying child support past his son S.W.’s eighteenth birthday while S.W. was enrolled in a home-study program. Father argued that the magistrate erred in finding that S.W.’s home-study program qualified as high school under the 2002 child-support order and in ordering him to continue paying child support on that basis. Resolving this dispute required review of the evidentiary record, as well as a review of the magistrate’s findings, analysis, and conclusions. The Vermont Supreme Court found father, appearing pro se, did not provide any record of the trial court's proceedings. "Because we lack a sufficient record to review the magistrate’s order, we have no basis on which to disturb it." View "Golden v. Worthington" on Justia Law

Daughter A.W. was born in October 2013 and son A.W. was born in June 2017. In February 2019, father was charged with domestic assault for attempting to strangle daughter, who was five years old at the time. As a result, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed petitions alleging that daughter and son were children in need of care or supervision (CHINS). DCF had accepted five previous reports asserting both physical abuse of daughter and mother by father and concerns that son was not gaining weight or receiving medical care. The court granted emergency- and temporary-care orders transferring custody to DCF. Children were placed with their paternal grandparents. In March 2019, both parents stipulated that daughter and son were CHINS due to father’s physical abuse of daughter and statements indicating a risk of harm to son. In May 2019, the court entered a disposition order and adopted a case plan calling for reunification with one or both parents by November 2019. The Children appealed the ultimate decision to terminate their parents rights to them following voluntary relinquishments. The Children argued the family division court lacked the power to modify the disposition order terminating the parental rights because they did not consent to the termination, and the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether termination was in their best interests. To this, the Vermont Supreme Court concurred, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re A.W. & A.W." on Justia Law

MiHae (Hooper) Randall (mother) filed a motion with the family division requesting Timothy Randall (father) pay a portion of her attorney’s fees relating to proceedings modifying the parties' parental rights and responsibilities. The court denied mother’s motion. Mother filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment, which the court also denied. Mother appealed. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for attorney’s fees and therefore affirmed. View "Randall v. Hooper" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the denial of defendant Mary Ann Theberge’s post-judgment motion to enforce the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to a spousal-maintenance award made in her favor in the parties’ divorce action. The trial court found that the parties agreed to a modification of the maintenance award eliminating the yearly COLA and that, consequently, plaintiff Gerald Theberge’s maintenance payments - which continued after the alleged agreement, absent the COLA - were not in arrears. Accordingly, the court denied the enforcement motion. The Vermont Supreme Court held that a tuition agreement between the parties was a valid contract such that, if plaintiff agreed to waive defendant’s obligation thereunder in connection with a second agreement, he would have given up a legal right he was otherwise free to exercise. As a result, remand was necessary for the trial court to determine whether the parties entered an agreement with corrected factual findings. In connection with this remand, the Court noted that the trial court considered defendant’s receipt of ten years of maintenance payments without COLA to constitute “waiver by performance.” However, it was unclear whether the trial court was referring to waiver in the context of evidence that defendant made an oral agreement to waive the COLA, or whether it was referring to waiver as the relinquishment of a known right through defendant’s failure to seek enforcement of the COLA sooner than she did. Upon remand, the trial court was asked to clarify its conclusion regarding defendant’s “waiver by performance.” View "Theberge v. Theberge" on Justia Law

Parents appealed the termination of their rights in M.L., born in 2014, and H.T., born in 2015, following a long-delayed initial disposition hearing. They argued the trial court: (1) committed plain error in accepting their stipulation that the children were in need of care or supervision (CHINS); (2) violated their due process rights by delays in the proceedings; and (3) erred in concluding that they would not be able to parent the children within a reasonable time. While the delay in the initial disposition hearing meant the court did not have to find stagnation in order to terminate the parents’ residual parental rights, the court made findings that supported termination. Contrary to parents’ assertion, the Vermont Supreme Court found the trial court did not “ignore[] the injustices that were apparent to service providers, expert witnesses and the GALs.” Instead, the Supreme Court determined the trial court applied the law and evaluated, based on the evidence, whether terminating parents’ rights would be in the children’s best interests. “While parents disagree with the court’s conclusion, they fail to show error.” View "In re H.T. & M.L." on Justia Law

Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights to son C.L.S. C.L.S. was born in February 2018. During mother’s last trimester of pregnancy, hospital staff reported to the Department for Children and Families (DCF) that mother had repeatedly tested positive for illicit unprescribed substances. She missed numerous prenatal and medication-assisted-treatment appointments during her pregnancy. She declined inpatient treatment or a referral to a substance-abuse clinic. Parents were unmarried but lived together prior to C.L.S.’s birth. At birth, C.L.S. weighed less than five pounds, had an underdeveloped esophagus, and was in withdrawal from having illegal drugs in his system. He initially required a feeding tube. Mother tested positive for numerous unprescribed illegal drugs. DCF took C.L.S into custody on an emergency basis on the day he was born and filed a petition alleging that C.L.S. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). A temporary care hearing began the following day. The parents denied that C.L.S. was CHINS, sought a conditional order giving custody to father, and requested a contested temporary care hearing. The court continued custody with DCF but permitted parents to have unsupervised contact with C.L.S. while he remained in the hospital. C.L.S. was subsequently discharged to a foster home and father filed a motion requesting parent-child contact and unsupervised visitation. In September 2018, after a contested hearing, the court issued a disposition order continuing DCF custody and adopted a case plan calling for concurrent goals of reunification with either parent or adoption. Neither party appealed the disposition order. In January 2019, the State filed petitions to terminate mother’s and father’s parental rights. On appeal, neither parent challenged the court’s findings or conclusions in the termination order. Rather, they asserted the court committed various errors at the temporary care hearings that required reversal of the merits determination and subsequent disposition orders. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "In re C.L.S." on Justia Law