In re. Riley (Pleadings and more from Trial and Appeal)

Below is the July 31, 2024 In re: Riley Appellate Court remand to Trial Court on factual question having no bearing whatsoever on any of several dispositive legal issues on appeal. Other pleadings giving context to the Remand are also below, and all pleadings can be accessed via www.vermontjudiciary.org.

Pleadings

2023-01-06 (& 01-20) Father’s Post-Hearing Memo & Reply Memo summarizing & attaching undisputed and admitted evidence that (1) highly-disabled adult Child was best-served by continuing his 18-year-pattern of seeing Father three times per week; (2) Child lacked capacity to decide otherwise; and (3) prior judge had promised Father he could speak with Child in person before Mother could seek even a minor (e.g., 1-hour) change from the 3x/week ordered schedule.

2023-03-14 TC Order failing even to discuss Child’s best interest or lack of capacity, much less prior judge’s promise and other dispositive issues. Instead prolonging already-over-2-year separation to begin process of determining whether Child, after responding 7 out of 7 times that he loves Father and wants to see him, gave a single negative response because of Mother’s undue influence.

2023-04-13 Statement of Questions to Appellate Court, including whether Trial Judge erred in ignoring best interest, lack of capacity, and other dispositive issues (and instead focusing on issue that could have no bearing on merits since Child indisputably lacked capacity to answer either way).

2023-08-08: Appellate Court’s Request for Briefing on Jurisdiction (with sole issue being whether Trial Court’s ongoing inquiry barred appeal).

2023-09-07: Father’s Response to 08-08 Order, showing with undisputed and admitted evidence that appeal is ripe because outcome of Trial Court’s query could have no bearing on controlling legal issues (since, for example, Child lacked capacity to decide either way).

2024-01-24: Appeal Court’s postponing jurisdictional decision so Appellate Judge could appoint (and hear from) counsel for Child.

2024-03-29: Motion by Court-Appointed Counsel for Order of Contempt and Sanctions against Mother. Reporting ongoing and harmful influence by Mother; stating that the continued separation was causing “irreparable harm” to Child, and that “mother’s actions appear to be intentional and not grounded in what is best for [Child].” Confirming that there is “no evidence that [Child] has the intellectual capacity to give informed consent … [on] whether to see his father or not.”) Noting that, under VT family law, Tucker should not have been called as a witness. As further reason to end separation, stating “The evidence in the record and my contact with [Father] suggest he has been a consistent and nurturing parent of [Child]” and that “There is no evidence of [Father] harming [Child] in the record.” She urged that visitation begin immediately, including while the appeal was pending.” She concluded that “irreparable harm is happening and this court should act on an exigent basis to stave off further harm.”) In his April 1 response, the Appellate Court did nothing but expand Counsel’s role to appear as well before the Trial Court (effectively already remanding for lack of jurisdiction).

2024-04-05 Motion by Child’s Court-Appointed Counsel to Trial Court to hold Mother in Contempt and for Immediate Enforcement of Schedule, repeating virtually all of 03-29 Motion to Appeals Court. Including that there is “no evidence [Child] has the intellectual capacity to give informed consent or denial for any legal matter in his life, including whether to see his father” and that the evidence is that Father has been “a consistent and nurturing parent of [Child]” and that “there is no evidence of [Father] harming [Child].”

2024-05-08: Child’s Court-Appointed Counsel Brief, stating that Mother is causing harm to Child; that Mother’s goal seems to be to harm Father; that Mother’s Counsel had breached ethics by agreeing Child could resume visitation only if motions for sanctions and contempt were withdrawn; and that Child has a “legal right” to see Father immediately.

2024-05-17 Brief by Mother’s Counsel stating that Father had never disputed Child’ capacity to decide whether to discontinue seeing Father. See also 2024-05-29 Transcript, Mother’s Counsel again stating same.

2024-07-31: Appeal Court remanding for lack of jurisdiction. It is this remand that was cited on p. 8 of Dec. 11, 2025 Reply filed in Spaulding v. Spaulding, Dkt. 25-AP-359 (SCOV). Failing to certify questions of law to the SCOV despite that they were controlling.

2024-09-10: SCOV dismissing Father’s (pro se) appeal without acknowledging the three controlling questions of law on appeal.

2025-02-05 Transcript: Trial Court’s finding (at 111) that Child continues to lack capacity (an issue for which no competing evidence had arisen to justify even the review), but still not returning the controlling questions of law to the Appeals Court.

Transcripts: 2018-08-09, 2022-01-03, 2022-05-05 (excerpts … 8 pp.), 2022-07-22; 2022-11-09 (excerpts); 2022-12-08; 2024-05-29; 2025-02-05 (excerpts)

;