Case Title: McSweeney v. McSweeney

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-601

                               MAY TERM, 1992


 Susan McSweeney                   }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Franklin Family Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Douglas McSweeney                 }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 40-7-84FrUr


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      In this appeal, we must decide whether the Legislature intended that
 nonattorney employees of the office of child support (OCS) prosecute URESA
 cases on behalf of state's attorneys.  A magistrate and a reviewing trial
 court held that it did not.  We agree and affirm.

      We resolve this question by analyzing two statutory schemes: chapter 10
 of Title 4, creating the family court, and chapter 7 of Title 15, facili-
 tating reciprocal enforcement of child support (URESA). (FN1)

      Under the family court scheme, magistrates conduct proceedings to
 establish, modify, and enforce child support and URESA.  4 V.S.A. { 461(a).
 Numerous steps are taken to make magistrate proceedings "user friendly,"
 that is, simple, inexpensive, and accessible to the public.  For example,
 persons appearing before the magistrate are "entitled but not required to
 be represented by an attorney," 4 V.S.A. { 464, standardized forms are to
 be provided "to make the magistrate hearing accessible to all parties in a
 dispute without the assistance of counsel," 4 V.S.A. { 467(a), and
 magistrates will assist parties in developing evidence, 4 V.S.A. { 466(d).

      Consistent with this approach, the Legislature has provided for some
 participation by those not legally trained:  nonattorney employees of the
 office of child support may "prepare, sign, serve and file complaints and
 motions and participate in child support proceedings before a magistrate,
 which shall not be considered the unauthorized practice of law."  4 V.S.A.
 { 464; see also V.R.F.P. 10(a) (family court rule following and implementing
 { 464).  In contrast to { 461(a), which empowers magistrates to hear both
 child support and URESA cases, { 464, by its express terms, empowers
 nonattorney child support workers to participate only in child support
 cases.

      Where the meaning of a statute is plain on its face, we will enforce
 the statute according to its terms.  Burlington Elec. Dep't v. Vermont
 Dep't of Taxes, 154 Vt. 332, 335-36, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990).  Here, { 464
 unambiguously limits nonattorney participation to child support cases by
 excluding reference to URESA.  Thus, "'there is no need for construction;
 the legislative intent is to be ascertained from the act itself.'"  Id. at
 336, 576 A.2d  at 452 (quoting Hill v. Conway, 143 Vt. 91, 93,