Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A father appealed a superior court order terminating his parental rights with respect to his two children, A.M. and T.M. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the State failed to meet its threshold burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that sufficient changed circumstances existed to modify the previous disposition order establishing concurrent goals of reunification and adoption. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re T.M. and A.M." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a superior court order adjudicating the minors J.C. and T.F. to be children in need of care and supervision (CHINS). An in-home service provider with the Early Head Start program who visited the family on several occasions in 2014 observed a number of cruel and abusive interactions between mother and her stepdaughter K.P. Based on the Head Start provider’s report, a social worker with the Department for Children and Families also visited the home. She observed that mother appeared to be stressed, overwhelmed, and agitated throughout the visits, noted the cruel treatment of K.P., and also observed an incident in which mother grabbed J.C. by the arms and forced the child onto a couch. Mother testified that she regularly suffered from depression, and had been prescribed medication but was not taking it. Father testified about his own extensive history of drug abuse and struggles to stay clean and sober. Although his work kept him away from the home for much of the time, he testified that he had no concerns about mother’s treatment of the children. The court concluded that mother had emotionally and physically abused K.P., and further concluded that the evidence demonstrated mother’s general inability to properly care for J.C. and T.F. and her need for parenting education. The court noted father’s need for continued substance abuse treatment. Based on these conclusions, the court adjudicated both children to be CHINS, and set the matter for a disposition hearing. This appeal by mother followed. Mother argued that the evidence and findings failed to support the judgment, and that the court’s findings were conclusory and inadequate. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re J.C. & T.F., Juveniles" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant Justin Gonyo appealed a family court order adjudicating nonparentage. The child at the center of this matter was born in 2011. Shortly thereafter, the child’s mother and defendant filed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage (VAP) form with the Department of Health, Agency of Human Services. Both parties signed the form, which stated that they “voluntarily and without coercion, and of our own free will, hereby acknowledge that we are the biological parents of the child” and understand and accept “the legal rights and responsibilities that come with being a parent,” including rights to custody, visitation, and notice before the child may be adopted. The child’s birth certificate identified mother and defendant as the child’s parents. Mother and defendant separated in 2012. About a year later, in October 2013, the Office of Child Support (OCS) filed a Complaint for Support and Recovery of Debt, together with a “Motion for Genetic Testing Despite Parentage Presumption.” The motion alleged that, despite the presumption of parentage arising from the VAP, there were grounds to believe that defendant was not the biological father based on mother’s affidavit naming another individual as the biological father, and stating that she was already fourteen weeks pregnant when she and defendant got together. The following month, defendant filed a pro se pleading in which he opposed the motion for genetic testing and asked the court “to grant [him] a parentage order of the child.” Defendant acknowledged that he was not the child’s biological father and was aware of this when he signed the VAP, but claimed that there was “nothing wrong” with doing so, and that the time for rescinding it had expired. Defendant followed with a more formal motion to establish parentage in December 2013. In the meantime, the family court granted the motion for genetic testing, which took place in early January 2014. The test excluded defendant as the child’s biological father. Mother later filed a pro se motion to dismiss defendant’s parentage action, and OCS moved to set aside the VAP and to set the matter for a hearing. In February 2014, the family court issued a summary “order of non-parentage” based on the genetic test, dismissed defendant’s parentage action, and ordered the case closed. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that undisputed facts supported a motion to set aside the acknowledgment of paternity as a fraud on the court, and affirmed the judgment of nonparentage as to defendant on that basis. View "McGee v. Gonyo" on Justia Law

In September 2012, a four-day hearing was held on father’s petition on behalf of the child for a final relief-from-abuse order against mother, as well as on mother’s cross-motion to modify parental rights and contact. According to father, in May 2012, the child related that over the prior few months, mother and her boyfriend had sexually abused him. Mother vigorously denied the allegations. The court found that, taking all of the credible evidence into consideration, father failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that mother abused the child. It thus denied his request for a final restraining order. As to mother’s motion, the court found that the ongoing dispute between parents had not abated over the years. Mother had created a website in which she posted intensely critical tirades about father. The court found that mother’s behavior impaired the child’s ability to have a good relationship with the three adult caregivers in his life. The court also had concerns about mother’s parenting skills based on her in-court demeanor. The court did not believe that the child was deliberately lying about the alleged assaults, but concluded that he was making extraordinarily serious and very negative statements about mother because he lacked the ability to cope with mother’s evident hatred of father, and he wanted it to stop. Mother, acting pro se, appealed a trial court order on the parents’ cross-motions concerning their son. Father moved to terminate efforts to reestablish parent-child contact with mother, and mother moved to modify parental rights and responsibilities. The court denied mother’s motion to modify, and it did not allow mother any rights of parent-child contact until August 2016, unless the child’s trauma therapist recommended contact earlier. Mother argued that the court’s findings were inadequate, and that the findings did not support the court’s conclusion. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion, and affirmed. View "Knutsen v. Cegalis" on Justia Law

M.M. was born in September 2006; C.M. was born on June 25, 2014. The Department for Children and Families (DCF) began working with mother in June 2012. On June 25, 2014, DCF filed a petition alleging that M.M. and C.M. were children in need of care or supervision (CHINS). The parties agreed to a conditional care order with mother retaining custody subject to extensive conditions. Father was incarcerated at the time. Following a January 2015 merits hearing, the court found the children to be CHINS. Mother appealed the trial court’s order finding M.M. and C.M. to be CHINS. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the record supported the court’s decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re M.M. and C.M." on Justia Law

This case arose from a divorce proceeding between plaintiff Kenneth Felis and his former wife, Vicki. Defendant Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC (DRM) represented Vicki Felis in the divorce proceeding, and defendant Gallagher, Flynn & Company, LLP (GFC) was retained by DRM on behalf of Ms. Felis to prepare business valuations related to the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed the Superior Court decision to grant defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty based on DRM’s representation of Ms. Felis. GFC cross-appealed the superior court’s denial of its motion to strike pursuant to 12 V.S.A. 1041. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC" on Justia Law

Mother appealed a trial court’s final divorce order. She asserted that the court erred in granting the parties a divorce because the statutory requirements for divorce were not satisfied. She also challenged the court’s award of primary legal and physical custody of the parties’ five children (including her son, but father’s stepchild) to father. Lastly, she argued that the court abused its discretion in its award of parent-child contact. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s order in all respects with the exception of its decision to award father primary parental rights and responsibilities in his stepchild. On this issue, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "LeBlanc v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law

The parties were married in 1981. In 1998, husband retired from the United States Army after almost twenty-two years of service. About two years later, the parties were divorced in Vermont pursuant to a stipulated judgment. The judgment provided that husband’s military pension “shall be shared by the parties as a portion of their marital property” where, as pertinent to this case, Wife would receive 41.8% of husband’s total army pension as marital property. The DFAS thereafter garnished wife’s share of the pension and paid it directly to her. In 2009, eleven years after husband’s retirement and nine years after the parties’ divorce, he was recalled from retirement to serve as a military instructor in the ROTC program at the University of New Hampshire. He was discharged from the military in 2012, after three years in this position. During the three years of husband’s recall, his pension benefits were suspended so that neither he nor wife received any benefits. Husband’s additional service resulted in an increase in his monthly pension benefit. When contacted by husband, the DFAS indicated that it would continue to pay wife 41.8 percent of the benefit, as provided in the divorce judgment, resulting in an increase in the total amount of her payment. Husband then filed a motion to amend his support obligation, asserting that payment of the “straight percentage” provided in the divorce judgment would result in “over-payments” to wife. He proposed modified language that wife’s payment would to be calculated based on husband’s completed service at the time of the divorce. The trial court denied the husband's motion. Husband appealed, arguing: the trial court abused its discretion in: (1) denying the motion, and (2) failing to hold a hearing on the merits. The Supreme Court reversed. "[T]his is not a case where [. . .] the parties’ intentions about husband’s post-divorce service were “inescapably speculative,” as one might reasonably conclude in the more typical divorce situation involving the division of a spouse’s pension who was still employed at the time of the divorce." The case was remanded to afford the parties a hearing to address whether the modification sought by husband was absolutely necessary to “prevent hardship or injustice.” View "Spencer v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Husband Gilles Richard appealed a family court order awarding wife Ellen Richard interest on a payment due under the final divorce decree. Husband argued that the award of interest was an impermissible modification of the final decree. Pursuant to the final divorce judgment, husband had a fixed obligation to pay wife $11,500 in cash or through QDRO, and any delay in payment was subject to interest by operation of law. "The trial court’s approach to ordering the statutorily due interest in this case was admittedly confusing - the court purported to add a 'clarifying' provision to the final divorce decree, but the clarifying language was nothing more than a statement of the law that applies to post-judgment interest even without the 'addition' to the decree." The trial court did not substantively modify its final property division after the fact; the language it purported to add to the final order was entirely redundant. The trial court’s ruling was not a substantive modification at all; the final order had the exact same implications for husband’s obligation to pay, the timing of that obligation, and his liability for interest after the trial court’s order as before. To the extent that husband argued that the absence of any reference to interest in the final divorce decree reflects “an implied ruling that no interest would accrue prior to transfer,” regardless of husband’s delay in making that transfer, the argument is squarely at odds with well-established law providing for post-judgment interest on fixed obligations. View "Richard v. Richard" on Justia Law

Husband appealed the trial court’s final divorce order. He argued the court erred by including certain items as part of the marital estate, awarding wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate, and failing to award him maintenance. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to "the Danby property," the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case so that the trial court could further consider the Danby property under the appropriate statutory provision. Given that the case was remanded, the Court did not reach husband’s final argument that the court’s distribution of marital property unfairly favored wife. View "Coburn v. Cook" on Justia Law