Case Title: Powers v. Office of Child Support

Citation: 173 Vt. 390, 795 A.2d 1259

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Powers v. Office of Child Support (2000-335); 173 Vt. 390; 795 A.2d 1259

[Filed 05-Apr-2002]

       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. 2000-335

Katherine Powers	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Superior Court

Office of Child Support	                         September Term, 2001

Matthew I. Katz, J.

Charlotte Dennett, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Donelle Smith Staley, 
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson, Skoglund, JJ., and 
          Allen, C.J. (Ret.), SpeciallyAssigned

       SKOGLUND, J. Plaintiff Katherine Powers appeals from a superior court
  judgment  dismissing her claims against defendants State of Vermont, Office
  of Child Support ("OCS"), and  eleven of its current and former employees
  for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be  granted under
  V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). (FN1)

  

       Specifically, Powers claims that the Vermont OCS failed to adequately
  represent her in  seeking enforcement of child support orders against her
  ex-husband.  She argues that the court erred  in determining that her
  claims against the State and OCS were barred by the doctrine of sovereign 
  immunity and that her claims against the individual defendants were barred
  by 12 V.S.A. § 5602(a).   She claims, too, that the court erred in failing
  to consider her breach of contract claim.  We affirm.

       When reviewing a motion to dismiss we accept as true all well-pleaded
  factual allegations in  the complaint.  Richards v. Town of Norwich, 169
  Vt. 44, 48-49,