Case Title: Wright v. Bradley

Citation: 180 Vt. 383, 2006 VT 100, 910 A.2d 893

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wright v. Bradley (2005-467); 180 Vt. 383; 910 A.2d 893

2006 VT 100

[Filed 15-Sept-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 100

                                No. 2005-467


  Jodi Wright, on behalf of                      Supreme Court
                                                 Casandra Hood
                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Washington Family Court


  Matt Bradley                                   May Term, 2006


  Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

  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., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  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;
        (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. (FN1)  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. (FN2)  The court relied on the
  language of the statute, which encourages consideration of the nature,
  frequency, and duration of interaction, when making its determination.  It
  considered plaintiff's sparse testimony in light of the factors in the
  statute and determined that plaintiff "failed to establish that the nature
  of the dating relationship in issue in this case is of such substantiality
  in light of the statutory criteria as to sustain her complaint for relief
  from abuse."  On appeal, plaintiff questions the family court's
  interpretation of 15 V.S.A.   1101(2), arguing that it overemphasized
  certain of the factors, particularly the requirement that the relationship
  be "romantic," and failed to consider the parties' age and maturity. 
   
       ¶  6.  Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo
  review.  McAlister v. Vermont Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 2006 VT
  85, ¶ 11, 17 Vt. L. Wk. 254.  Thus, our review of whether the Legislature
  intended for a dating relationship to be "substantial" in order for a
  relief from abuse order to be imposed is de novo.  In construing a statute,
  we first look at the language.  If the language is clear, we apply the
  statute in accordance with its plain meaning.  Travelers Ins. Co. v. Henry,
  2005 VT 68, ¶ 11, 178 Vt. 287,