Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother and father were in a long-distance relationship for several years, throughout which mother lived in Vermont and father in Florida. In 2006, the parties had a child together. Although they never lived together as a family, parents continued taking regular trips with the child to visit each other until 2010, when they ended their relationship and mother filed a parentage action. Following the superior court’s amendment of a parent-child contact order, and in response to a child support order remanded to the magistrate by the superior court, appellant mother sought to overturn the superior court’s amendment and raised a number of issues with both the superior court and the magistrate’s treatment of father’s income for child support purposes. Upon review of the particular facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s amended parent-child contact order and dismissed mother’s appeal of issues regarding the child support order. View "Patnode v. Urette" on Justia Law

Mark, the father of D.S., and Todd, the father of M.H., appealed the trial court’s order terminating their residual parental rights. The children shared the same mother. Both fathers had extensive criminal records and were incarcerated for most of their children’s lives. The Department for Children and Families (DCF) became involved with the family in December 2008 based on concerns of substance abuse, sexualized behavior, domestic violence, and neglect. In January 2012, the children were taken into custody pursuant to an emergency care order. At the time of the termination hearings, the court found that neither father played constructive roles in their children's lives. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights. View "In re D.S., In re M.H." on Justia Law

Father appealed a trial court’s order adjudicating B.R. a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). He argued that the court’s decision was not supported by evidence. B.R. was born in November 2012. On Monday, March 4, 2013, the Department for Children and Families (DCF) filed a petition alleging that B.R. was CHINS, and it obtained an emergency care order. Shortly before the CHINS petition was filed, an affidavit was filed describing the circumstances surrounding mother’s March 1, 2013, arrest for driving under the influence of drugs with her two older children in the car; mother’s statements to the arresting officers about being stopped the day before for possessing a methadone pill and crystal methamphetamine, drugs that she stated belonged to father; mother’s admission to the arresting officers that she had cooked methamphetamine with father at the family’s home the night before her DUI arrest; mother’s concern at that time about B.R.’s welfare in father’s care, and her fears that father had taken the three-month-old child to a "meth house" in New York; and mother’s subsequent statements to police on Saturday, March 2, that she had retrieved B.R. from a "meth house" in New York where father had taken him. Finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re B.R." on Justia Law

"Belle" is an eleven-year-old German wirehaired pointer who was greatly loved by husband and wife. The parties had no minor children, and they were able to reach an agreement on the division of their property and other financial issues - except for Belle. They came to the final hearing for a ruling on which one of them would receive the dog in the divorce decree. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court awarded the dog to husband. It found that either party would provide the dog with a good life, but gave a slight edge to husband because the dog was accustomed to the routine of going to the clinic every day. The court balanced that factor against the dog’s familiarity with the marital home, which the parties agreed wife would receive as part of the property settlement. It found that husband "treats the dog like a dog," while wife is more doting and treats the dog like a child. The court concluded that the dog would do better with husband’s balanced attitude towards the animal. On appeal, wife claimed that the court erred in refusing to consider allocating the dog to both spouses in a joint arrangement. The Supreme Court affirmed the family court decision on two grounds: (1) the factors identified and considered by the court in allocating the dog were appropriate; and (2) the family division cannot enforce a visitation or shared custody order for animals: "[t]he court need not specify the weight given to each factor, but is required only to provide a clear statement as to what was decided and why." View "Hament v. Baker" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the family division had exclusive jurisdiction over the distribution of marital property acquired during a marriage that ended in annulment. In 2011, wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Family Division of the Franklin Superior Court. Both parties represented themselves. Following a hearing, the family division determined that wife was still married to her first husband at the time of her marriage to husband in March 2000. Wife had received divorce papers filed by her first husband and believed that their marriage had ended in divorce. The family division initially ruled that the marriage between the parties in this case was void by operation of law. The only issue was division of property. Wife was ordered to turn over property belonging to husband. A few months later, the family division changed its mind concerning the property division: "[s]ince the marriage was void at its beginning, this court does not have jurisdiction to resolve this dispute. The parties are referred to the civil division. Either party may start an action there. The family court’s case is closed." Husband followed the court's instructions, and subsequently filed two small claims cases against wife seeking money damages for property he claims was his. The small claims judge entered judgment in favor of wife. Husband appealed to the civil division, which held that the civil division and the small claims court lacked jurisdiction over the division of marital property. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the civil division. View "Cameron v. Rollo" on Justia Law

Mother and father appealed a family court order adjudicating the minor A.W. to be a Child in Need of Care and Supervision (CHINS). They argued on appeal: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); and (2) the evidence did not support the trial court's finding that the child was without proper parental care. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re A.W." on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, defendant Christopher Moreau challenged the Washington family court's dismissal of his emergency petition for child custody and parentage complaint over children with whom he shares no biological or other established legal connection, as well as the Caledonia family court’s issuance of a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order denying him visitation with the children. Defendant contended that he was the children's de facto parent and entitled to assert and be heard on custody, parentage and visitation rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's arguments and affirmed the family courts' decisions. View "Moreau v. Sylvester" on Justia Law

In 2002, defendant Richard Hardie borrowed money from Brattleboro Savings & Loan Association in order to purchase a vacation home in Weathersfield. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and included a "second home rider" clause, asserting that the property was not a primary residence. Hardie was married to intervenor-appellee Lisa Mangini at the time, but was the sole owner of the property, and Mangini did not sign either the promissory note or the mortgage. Hardie twice refinanced the property without Mangini's participation, both with second home riders. By 2007, Hardie and Mangini's marriage was deteriorating. Mangini left the couple's New Jersey home and moved into the Weathersfield property. In 2008, Mangini filed for divorce in Vermont. In her divorce filing, Mangini claimed that the property had become her primary residence as of May 2007. Also in the divorce filing, Mangini requested "an award of the Weathersfield home and the adjoining land either without any encumbrances, or, in the alternative, that [Hardie] be responsible for paying off and releasing the mortgage[] to [Brattleboro Savings]." While Mangini was occupying the property and the divorce was pending, Hardie refinanced the mortgage on the Weathersfield property. The 2008 refinancing was completed without Mangini's participation, and Hardie again claimed that the property was a second home. In 2011, Brattleboro Savings commenced a foreclosure action on the property, naming only Hardie as a defendant. Despite not being named in the foreclosure case, Mangini filed an answer asserting an affirmative defense that she had established a homestead interest in the property prior to the 2008 mortgage, and that therefore the 2008 mortgage was "inoperative to convey" her homestead interest. Brattleboro Savings filed two motions for summary judgment, one requesting a foreclosure judgment against Hardie and the second seeking judgment against Mangini on her homestead claim. Mangini filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, detailing for the first time her claim that she had acquired an equitable interest in the property by her divorce filing. Brattleboro Savings appealed a superior court's decision denying its motions for summary judgment and granting Mangini's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Mangini held title to the Weathersfield property free and clear of a mortgage to plaintiff. The superior court ruled that the mortgage was inoperative because Hardie, mortgaged the property without the participation of Mangini in violation of 27 V.S.A. section 141(a). Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of Mangini's motion for summary judgment and the denial of Brattleboro Saving's motions for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Brattleboro Savings & Loan Assn. v. Hardie, et al." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal stems from a final judgment of divorce: whether, as husband contended, the trial court erred in its division of the marital estate by including an offset for the disparity in value between the parties' projected Social Security retirement benefits. The parties did not agree on the assets to be included in the marital estate. Wife submitted a list of assets with a total value of $1,152,325.86, including $88,158 identified as the difference between the present value of husband's and wife's projected Social Security benefits. The value was determined by wife's accountant and credited toward husband's suggested share of the marital estate, with a corresponding offset in value for wife. Wife proposed that she be awarded either sixty percent of the value of the entire estate plus spousal maintenance, or eighty percent without maintenance. Husband submitted a separate list of marital assets which totaled $978,504 and did not include the Social Security differential. Husband proposed an award to wife of sixty percent of the value of the estate plus rehabilitative maintenance for a period of several years. In its written ruling, the trial court found that wife's proposed property division was "a reasonable one" and gave her the option of choosing either the eighty/twenty division that she had proposed or an award of sixty percent plus maintenance until she reached the age of sixty-seven. Wife subsequently opted for the higher percentage of the marital estate without the maintenance, and the trial court entered a final judgment consistent with that choice and with wife's proposed division. Husband's two subsequent motions to reconsider were denied. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in treating the parties' respective anticipated Social Security benefits as assets of the marital estate, reducing them to a purported present value, allocating the differential to husband, and awarding wife a direct offset on account. "Omitting the value of these benefits only marginally affects the marital estate, valued at over $1 million, and we therefore remand for the trial court to recalculate the award pursuant to the original percentage division of eighty percent for wife and twenty percent for husband." View "Manning v. Schultz" on Justia Law

The father of L.M. appealed the trial court's finding L.M. to be a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS). He raised numerous arguments. The Supreme Court found that while father's unstable living situation, standing alone, might not be sufficient to support a CHINS determination, there were multiple elements of risk under the facts of this case leading to the trial court's conclusion that father and L.M. could end up in an unsafe living situation. Furthermore, father's inability to follow through on recommendations designed to promote L.M.'s safety enhanced the potential risk of harm to L.M.'s well-being. Given these factors, including mother's concession, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court record supported the decision that there was a risk of prospective harm to the child sufficient to justify the State’s temporary intervention to ensure that L.M. was safe. View "In re L.M." on Justia Law