Case Title: Davis v. Hunt

Citation: 167 Vt. 263, 704 A.2d 1166

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Davis v. Hunt  (96-099); 167 Vt. 263; 704 A.2d 1166

[Filed 21-Nov-1997]

       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.

                            No. 96-099

Fred W. Davis                                Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Lamoille Family Court

Roxanne Hunt                                 October Term, 1997

John P. Meaker, J.

       Leslie Black and Douglas L. Molde of Molde and Black, P.C., Johnson,
  for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert M. Fairbanks of Gaston, Durrance & Fairbanks, Montpelier, for
  defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Defendant Roxanne Hunt (mother) appeals from a family
  court judgment in a consolidated parentage and relief-from-abuse
  proceeding.  The court awarded plaintiff Fred Davis (father) sole legal and
  physical rights and responsibilities for the minor child and dismissed the
  relief-from-abuse petition.  Mother contends the court erred by: (1)
  allowing the minor's guardian ad litem to testify concerning custody of the
  minor child; (2) excluding the testimony of her thirteen year old daughter
  regarding allegations of abuse; (3) consolidating the relief from abuse and
  parentage proceedings; and (4) denying her request for an award of
  attorney's fees.  We reverse.

       The parties lived together for approximately six years but never
  married.  A child, Samuel, was born of the relationship in December 1990. 
  In 1994, the parties separated.  Both parties acknowledge that they are
  Samuel's biological parents.

       Following the separation, father filed a complaint for establishment
  of parentage and award of legal and physical rights and responsibilities. 
  Thereafter, mother petitioned the court on behalf of the child for relief
  from abuse.  The court issued a temporary relief-from-abuse

 

  order and consolidated the two actions for final hearing.  At the
  conclusion of the hearing, the court awarded sole legal and physical rights
  and responsibilities to father, provided for extensive visitation by
  mother, and dismissed the relief-from-abuse petition, finding that the
  evidence did not support the claim. This appeal followed.

                                     I.

       Mother first contends that the court erred in allowing the co-guardian
  ad litem, Robert Meyer, to testify as a witness and to state his
  recommendation regarding custody of the child based upon evidence not in
  the record.  Mother asserts that the guardian's testimony was incompetent
  under the criteria set forth in V.R.F.P. 7.

       Rule 7(d) allows a court-assigned guardian ad litem (GAL) to state "a
  position" but requires that the reasons for the position be "based upon
  evidence in the record."  A GAL may be called as a witness only when the
  testimony "would be directly probative of the child's best interest" and no
  other person could testify on the same subject.  Id.; see Johnson v.
  Johnson, 163 Vt. 491, 496-97,