Editor’s note: This piece from the SCOV Law Blog is by Elizabeth Kruska.
Golden v. Worthington, 2020 VT 71
This is sort of an interesting set of facts. The parties had a child in 2000. There is (or was) a child support order. It was supposed to stop when the child turned 18 or completed high school, whichever was later. Often kids turn 18 before graduation, so it makes little sense to stop support before they graduate. Conversely, kids sometimes graduate and then turn 18, and it makes sense for support to go to their birthday.
The child’s 18th birthday rolled around and Dad stopped paying child support. Mom moved to enforce, because child wasn’t done with school. Dad disagreed – child was actually in a home-study program, rather than in high school. Dad’s rationale was that child could have been done with the home study program, and had test scores that would have been consistent with finishing high school.
The magistrate set the case for a hearing and Dad did not appear. Mom appeared and supplied the court with some evidence about the child’s school. The magistrate ruled in Mom’s favor. About a month later, Dad filed a motion to reconsider. That was denied, because the child-support statute permits kids to be supported while home-schooled, and the child’s home-schooling was going to finish that spring.
Dad appealed to the Family Division, arguing that the home-schooling wasn’t equivalent to high school, and by ordering Dad to continue paying child support, the magistrate impermissibly expanded the order. The Family Division denied this without a hearing, finding that the child was enrolled in home-schooling that was to extend beyond his 18th birthday. The Family Division also pointed out that Dad didn’t show up for the initial hearing and so he missed his chance to make his arguments.
Dad appeals to SCOV, which affirms.
When someone appeals, they generally need to supply transcripts to the Supreme Court so that the court knows exactly what happened at the hearing below. Sometimes a transcript isn’t needed. But generally, if a party is trying to argue that the trial court made incorrect findings based on evidence presented, the court needs to know what the evidence was that was presented. Dad didn’t order a transcript of the initial hearing.
Dad tries to argue that home study is different than high school in several different ways, and also that child’s test scores indicated he could have finished school sooner. Mom argues that Dad didn’t preserve his argument because he didn’t show up at the initial hearing. She also argues that even if he had, the child support statute permits home-schooling, so the magistrate’s ruling was correct. The Office of Child Support was also a party and just asked SCOV to affirm and make a decision about when child support stops.
SCOV affirms and basically says it has to, based on the record before it. Since there is no transcript, SCOV has no way of knowing if the evidence presented served as an adequate basis for the magistrate’s findings. Dad is pro se, or self-represented. And although sometimes the court gives pro se litigants a little extra flexibility, the rules of procedure can’t be disregarded just because someone is pro se. Dad didn’t do what was necessary to preserve his argument or to support his argument, so SCOV has to affirm.
