Golden v. Worthington, 20-043
| Docket Nº | No. 20-043 |
| Citation | 239 A.3d 259 |
| Case Date | August 07, 2020 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
239 A.3d 259
Joe GOLDEN
v.
Gwyn WORTHINGTON
No. 20-043
Supreme Court of Vermont.
June Term, 2020
August 7, 2020
Joe Golden, Pro Se, Richmond, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Zarina Suárez O'Hagin, Hardwick, for Defendant-Appellee.
Kyle Hatt, Staff Attorney, Springfield, for Vermont Office of Child Support.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ.
REIBER, C.J.
¶ 1. Following an appeal to the family division, father, Joe Golden, challenges a family division magistrate's order requiring him to continue paying child support past his son S.W.'s eighteenth birthday
while S.W. is enrolled in a home-study program. We affirm.
¶ 2. The following facts are undisputed. Mother, Gwyn Worthington, and father had a child together, S.W., in 2000. On July 30, 2002, mother and father signed a child-support order, which stipulated that father would pay mother $450 per month in child support until S.W. turned eighteen, or "beyond [the] child's eighteenth birthday if the child is enrolled [in], but has not completed high school." When S.W. turned eighteen in June 2018, father stopped paying child support.
¶ 3. In October 2018, mother and the Office of Child Support (OCS) filed a motion to enforce the 2002 order. The magistrate held a hearing on December 7, 2018, and issued an enforcement order that day. This was a form order that did not include discussion about what evidence was presented or the magistrate's reasons for ordering enforcement. Mother appeared at the hearing. Father received notice of the hearing, but he did not appear.
¶ 4. On January 10, 2019, father filed a motion to reconsider1 the December 7 enforcement order, arguing in an affidavit that the 2002 order did not obligate him to continue paying child support past S.W.'s eighteenth birthday because S.W.'s home-study program was not high school. Mother replied that she had presented evidence at the December 7 hearing that established S.W. was enrolled in a home-study program approved by the State of Vermont, and S.W. would receive a high school diploma in June 2019. In May 2019, the magistrate denied father's motion to reconsider, stating that 15 V.S.A. § 658(c), part of the child-support statute, "encompasses home school programs," and noting that "[i]t is anticipated that this is [S.W.'s] last year in the [home-study] program."
¶ 5. Father appealed the magistrate's denial of his motion to reconsider to the family division in June 2019. Father argued that home study is not equivalent to high school, so the magistrate's order impermissibly expanded the scope of the 2002 child-support order. In January 2020, without a hearing, the family division affirmed the magistrate's denial of father's motion to reconsider. The court reasoned that "the Magistrate had authority under case law and the relevant statute to enforce child support obligations until [S.W.'s] graduation" based on the magistrate's "finding that [S.W.] was enrolled in a home school program expected to extend for another year past his eighteenth birthday." Thus, according to the family division, the magistrate did not impermissibly modify the 2002 order. The family division also rejected father's argument that home study is not high school, reasoning that father failed to preserve his argument because he did not appear at the December 7 hearing and "a motion to reconsider is not an opportunity to bring up new arguments." In a footnote, the court observed it was "not persuaded that home schooling is not encompassed by ‘high school’ or ‘secondary education’ for the purposes of determining the duration of a parent's child support obligation."
¶ 6. Father appealed the family court's decision to this Court. He did not order a transcript of the December 7 hearing before the magistrate, stating in his notice of appeal that no transcript was necessary. Appearing pro se, father argues that the 2002 order only extends past S.W.'s eighteenth birthday if S.W. is enrolled in high school and that S.W.'s home-study program is not equivalent to high school. He asserts that home study differs from high
school in numerous ways, including graduation requirements, the awarding of high school diplomas, who is in control of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Hart
...resolution of legal questions folded into that determination without deference. See Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71, ¶ 7, ––– Vt. ––––, 239 A.3d 259 ("Our review of questions of law is nondeferential and plenary" (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted)). Sufficiency of evidence is a lega......
-
Jones v. Hart
...court's resolution of legal questions folded into that determination without deference. See Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71, ¶ 7, Vt., 239 A.3d 259 ("Our review of questions of law is nondeferential and plenary" (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted))). Sufficiency of evidence is a lega......
-
Baron v. McGinty
...are clearly erroneous, nor its conclusions if reasonably supported by the findings." Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71, ¶ 7, ––– Vt. ––––, 239 A.3d 259 (quotation omitted). "We review the legal conclusions of the magistrate and the family division de novo." Merchant v. Merchant, 2015 VT 72,......
-
Baron v. McGinty
...are clearly erroneous, nor its conclusions if reasonably supported by the findings." Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71, ¶ 7, ___ Vt. ___, 239 A.3d 259 (quotation omitted). "We review the legal conclusions of the magistrate and the family division de novo." Merchant v. Merchant, 2015 VT 72, ......