Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed a final relief-from-abuse order in which the family division of the superior court concluded that plaintiff was a vulnerable adult and that defendant abused and exploited her. The Supreme Court found there was ample evidence in the record for the trial court to have found that defendant engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with plaintiff, who was a vulnerable adult. View "Smith v. Wright" on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court's judgment terminating his parental rights with respect to B.C. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred in: (1) denying parent-child contact in violation of his fundamental rights; (2) denying his request for an independent mental examination of B.C.; (3) making unsupported findings; and (4) applying the statutory best-interests criteria. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re B.C." on Justia Law

Mother appealed a trial court order terminating her residual parental rights to her children A.B. and A.B. She argued the trial court erred in denying her request to proceed pro se, which she made on the first day of the termination hearing. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "In re A.B. and A.B." on Justia Law

Wife appealed an order modifying spousal maintenance. She argued the trial court erred in setting the date for the modification to take effect, and by reducing husband's maintenance obligation based on her anticipated inheritance even though it had not yet been received, and absent a demonstration that it would improve her financial situation. Upon review of the order, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the evidence supported findings that husband's increase in income was a change of circumstances warranting reinstatement of the original maintenance amount, but that there were insufficient findings to demonstrate, that the inheritance improved her financial situation sufficiently to warrant further modifying her maintenance amount. View "Hausermann v. Hausermann" on Justia Law

K.F.'s (a juvenile) father appealed the termination of his parental rights. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for new counsel since his previous lawyer had a conflict of interest. As justification, father argued that his trial counsel failed to pursue certain strategies he suggested, and that she would not introduce or object to what he felt was important evidence at trial because she had been a foster parent and was therefore sympathetic to the Department for Children and Families (DCF). The trial court did not find these arguments persuasive and denied father's motion to remove father's trial counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that father did not demonstrate that his lawyer rendered ineffective counsel, and accordingly affirmed the trial court's decision. View "In re K.F." on Justia Law

Husband Kenneth Felis appealed a final divorce order, arguing the superior court abused its discretion in setting parent-child contact, dividing the marital estate, and awarding wife nominal maintenance and attorney's fees. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the parent-child contact order, the award of nominal maintenance, and the partial award of attorney's fees out of the marital estate to his wife. As to the property award, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Felis v. Felis" on Justia Law

Father Tedley Coles challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen the time in which to file an appeal of a maintenance and child support order. On appeal, he asserted that his motion was timely under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c). Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the Father's contention. View "Coles v. Coles" on Justia Law

Appellant-defendant Elizabeth Hanson-Metayer [wife] appealed a superior court decision regarding the divorce between her and appellee-plaintiff Michael Hanson-Metayer [husband]. She claimed that the court erred by: (1) making findings not supported by evidence; (2) questioning the parties without swearing them in; (3) changing its findings of fact from those announced in an oral decision on the record; (4) weighing the statutory factors in making its custody decision; (5) awarding the marital home to husband; (6) inequitably dividing the personal property; and (7) awarding attorney's fees to husband. Because the superior court's custody decision was supported by the evidence and the irregularities were harmless, the Supreme Court affirmed that part of the decision. However, the Court reversed and remanded as to the division of the marital property and the attorney's fees. View "Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer" on Justia Law

Father appealed a superior court family division's order that upheld a magistrate’s denial of his motion to modify his child support obligation. Specifically, father argued: (1) that the magistrate erred in declining to impute income to mother; and (2) that the magistrate failed to properly apply a credit in his favor to account for derivative benefits paid directly to mother on behalf of the minor child by the Social Security Administration on account of father’s disability. Upon review of the superior court record, the Supreme Court found that although the magistrate properly invoked the methodology established in the Court's holding in "Cantin," it did not complete its analysis: "[t]he magistrate conducted the first step of the guidelines analysis properly, imputing the derivative benefit to father and calculating a child support obligation accordingly. . . . However, the magistrate [. . .] never actually took the second step described in Cantin of applying [a $190 as a] payment from father to mother as a credit toward his child support obligation. Had it done so, it would have found that mother owed father a substantial monthly child support obligation on account of the imputed payment of child support from father to mother, by way of the derivative benefit, well in excess of the nominal child support obligation from father to mother pursuant to the guidelines calculation." Accordingly the Court reversed the superior court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that in the absence of a deviation from the guidelines calculation, father was entitled to an award of child support in the amount of the credit to him for the derivative benefit payment to mother less his child support obligation pursuant to the guidelines. The Court found that neither the magistrate nor the family division specifically addressed the proper accounting with respect to a $4370 lump sum derivative benefit arrearage payment to mother on behalf of the minor child. Because the obligation in question was payable to a third party, on remand the magistrate was ordered ensure that mother applied the lump sum toward father’s share of the child's medical bills, and that father was credited accordingly. View "LaMothe v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law

Defendant ex-husband appealed a superior court - family division order which found him in contempt for failure to pay spousal maintenance as ordered. He claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to find him in contempt because he was not personally served with the underlying order upon which the finding of contempt was based, as required by statute and our case law. Finding defendant's argument to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Welch v. Welch" on Justia Law