This case involves a disabled Child (Down’s Syndrome, nonverbal) whose Mother has prevented from seeing his Father for >5 years. The separation remains only because two Vermont judges have with no reason or accountability ignored controlling questions of law (including Child’s best interest). They’ve done so while ignoring the pleas of the Child’s Court Appointed Lawyer, “CAL”). Although after 4 years they acknowledge that the factual question they’d said required delay is in fact irrelevant, neither has reunited the Child and Father or addressed the CAL’s motion that Mother be sanctioned. None of this would have been allowed for even a day were Child not disabled or the Parents’ gender roles reversed.

The second judge (JT) was obligated to review the obviously-flawed rulings of the first (JK), with whom JT literally shared an office during the appeal. Instead (and after 16 months of dithering), JT remanded to JK on the pretext that JK needed to determine whether Mother was unduly influencing Child. JT and JK both completely ignored three controlling legal of law, and thus both violated Ethics Rule 3.1 (requiring at least an objective good faith basis for all attorney assertions or actions).

Despite that JK finally acknowledged that Mother’s undue influence was never relevant, neither judge has granted the Child’s (via his CAL) and Father’s plea for reunification. Pleadings demonstrating the misconduct are linked below, and all pleadings are available here.

*******

JK’s 2023 Order is the base of this calamity. It prolonged without basis what was already a 2-year-separation by failing even to address any of three fully-briefed and dispositive issues (Opening and Reply). These are: (1) it is in Child’s best interest to see both parents; (2) the court (through an earlier judge) had, in light of Mother’s prior untoward separation of Child from Father, had promised that Child and Father could meet prior to any changes from a 3x/week schedule of visits; and (3) Child lacked any capacity to decide to change the schedule at all.

Though Father’s Appeal identified all 3 question-of-law errors, JT ignored them and remanded to JK to determine the irrelevant question that JK was using for delay but has since acknowledged is irrelevant. Both judges also ignored the CAL’s arguments (made on behalf of Child) that Mother should be sanctioned and the visits resume.

JT delayed 16 months: He waited 4 months to do anything at all and then questioned whether he had jurisdiction; he ignored the Response establishing jurisdiction; he further postponed ruling so he could appoint and hear from a CAL; and he then then not only ignored the 3 errors of law but also CAL’s March 2024 Motion for Contempt and Sanctions against Mother (in light of ongoing irreparable harm to the Child caused by Mother).  

CAL told JT that “[t]he evidence in the record and my contact with [Father] suggest he has been a consistent and nurturing parent of [Child]” and urging that visitation begin immediately.  Again, CAL concluded that “irreparable harm is happening and this court should act on an exigent basis.” Still, JT did nothing, failing for over a year even to rule on whether he had jurisdiction. Overlapping with he pleas to JT, the CAL said virtually the same to JK, but neither judge stopped the separation or harm.

JK finally acknowledged in Feb. 2025 that the delaying factual question was irrelevant, yet neither judge ended the separation (and neither has allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court).