Wright v. Bradley, No. 05-467.
| Docket Nº | No. 05-467. |
| Citation | 2006 VT 100, 910 A.2d 893 |
| Case Date | September 15, 2006 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
v.
Matt BRADLEY.
Page 894
Michael D. Blair of Law Office of Michael D. Blair, Barre, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jon D. Valsangiacomo of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, Barre, for Defendant-Appellee.
Present: REIBER, C.J., and DOOLEY, JOHNSON, SKOGLUND and BURGESS, JJ.
DOOLEY, J.
¶ 1. Jodi Wright, on behalf of her daughter, Casandra Hood (plaintiff), appeals the dismissal of her complaint for relief from abuse from defendant, Matt Bradley. The family court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to sustain the order because plaintiff and defendant's relationship was not "of such substantiality" so as to be a "dating relationship" pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 1101(2). Plaintiff contends the relationship was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. We affirm.
¶ 2. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant sexually assaulted her. We do not address that claim here other than to note the allegations that form the basis for the complaint as drawn from plaintiff's affidavit. In July 2005, defendant drove plaintiff and her friend to his parents' residence in Woodbury, Vermont, where he hosted a party. After several hours, plaintiff wanted to leave and requested a ride home. Defendant refused to drive plaintiff home and denied her access to his telephone. Unable to leave, plaintiff slept on a couch in the living room where she remained until awakened by defendant, who then allegedly sexually assaulted her. Immediately following the incident, plaintiff left the house with her friend and went to a hospital for treatment. In the weeks that followed, plaintiff felt threatened by defendant and was afraid to return to the school they both attended without legal protection. Accordingly, plaintiff's mother sought a relief from abuse order, the denial of which is the basis for appeal.
¶ 3. Vermont's abuse prevention statute, 15 V.S.A. § 1103, sets forth the process by which relief from abuse orders are issued. Such orders may be issued only to family or household members against family or household members. Id. § 1103(a). Since plaintiff and defendant are not part of the same family, the court could issue a relief from abuse order only if they were household members at the time of the alleged abuse. The statute defines household members as follows:
(2) "Household members" means persons who, for any period of time, are living or have lived together, are sharing or have shared occupancy of a dwelling, are engaged in or have engaged in a sexual relationship, or minors or adults who are dating or who have dated. "Dating" means a social relationship of a romantic nature. Factors that the court may consider when determining whether a dating relationship exists or existed include:
(A) the nature of the relationship;
Page 895
(B) the length of time the relationship has existed;
(C) the frequency of interaction between the parties;
(D) the length of time since the relationship was terminated, if applicable.
Id. § 1101(2).
¶ 4. Plaintiff sought an abuse prevention order in August 2005, and the court issued a temporary ex parte order. The court held a hearing on September 8, 2005 on whether to issue a permanent order, and the focus was on whether plaintiff and defendant were "household members" because they had been in a dating relationship sufficient for issuance of the order.1 At the hearing, plaintiff testified on the issue as follows:
Q. [W]hat grade are you in?
A. 11th.
Q. Okay. How long have you known Matt Bradley?
A. For about two years, three years.
Q. During that two years, have you ever dated Matt Bradley?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you date Matt?
A. Freshman year we went to a party together, and sophomore year I went to his house and we watched a movie together.
Q. Okay. Since that time, have you continued to make contact with Matt?
A. Yeah, we talked on the phone and we had talked in school.
Following this testimony, defendant's father testified and described the existence and nature of his son's serious dating relationship with another young woman during the time period referenced by plaintiff. Defendant's father stated that during his son's eighteen-month relationship with the other woman, she had been at their house "at least once a day," and had developed a strong relationship with defendant's family. In contrast, defendant's father stated that he had met plaintiff only once when the teens were together at his home to watch a movie.
¶ 5. The family court concluded that the teens' past dating relationship was not substantial enough to allow it to issue a relief from abuse order and dismissed the complaint.2 The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bonvie, No. 05-560.
...refusal to take a chemical test is a question of law that we review de novo under our implied-consent statute. See Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. ___, 910 A.2d 893 ("Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review."). We begin with the relevant Vermont authori......
-
State v. Berard, No. 2018-180
...a jury verdict." Id. (quotation omitted). We review statutory interpretation without deference to the trial court. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. 383, 910 A.2d 893 ("Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review.").II. Analysis ¶ 8. Defendant was convicted o......
-
Obolensky v. Trombley, No. 13–418.
...sole purpose of the fence, or merely the dominant purpose? We review this question of statutory interpretation de novo. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. 383, 910 A.2d 893.¶ 22. At least eight states have adopted the “dominant-purpose test” for determining whether the intent elem......
-
State v. Pecora, No. 06-303.
...and overbroad. ¶ 4. This case turns on the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law we review de novo. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. ___, 910 A.2d 893. We first look to the plain language of 23 V.S.A. § 1211. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Henry, 2005 VT 68, ¶ 11, 1......
-
State v. Bonvie, No. 05-560.
...refusal to take a chemical test is a question of law that we review de novo under our implied-consent statute. See Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. ___, 910 A.2d 893 ("Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review."). We begin with the relevant Vermont authori......
-
State v. Berard, No. 2018-180
...a jury verdict." Id. (quotation omitted). We review statutory interpretation without deference to the trial court. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. 383, 910 A.2d 893 ("Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review.").II. Analysis ¶ 8. Defendant was convicted o......
-
Obolensky v. Trombley, No. 13–418.
...sole purpose of the fence, or merely the dominant purpose? We review this question of statutory interpretation de novo. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. 383, 910 A.2d 893.¶ 22. At least eight states have adopted the “dominant-purpose test” for determining whether the intent elem......
-
State v. Pecora, No. 06-303.
...and overbroad. ¶ 4. This case turns on the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law we review de novo. Wright v. Bradley, 2006 VT 100, ¶ 6, 180 Vt. ___, 910 A.2d 893. We first look to the plain language of 23 V.S.A. § 1211. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Henry, 2005 VT 68, ¶ 11, 1......