Case Title: Office of Child Support v. Stanzione

Citation: 180 Vt. 629, 2006 VT 98, 910 A.2d 882

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Child Support v. Stanzione (2004-426); 180 Vt. 629; 910 A.2d 882

2006 VT 98

[Filed 13-Sep-2006]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 24-Oct-2006]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 98

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-426

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005


  Office of Child Support, ex rel.     }         APPEALED FROM:
  Neil Stanzione                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }         Orleans Family Court
                                       }  
  Joyce Stanzione                      }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 84-4-97 Osdm

                                                 Trial Judge: Walter M. 
                                                              Morris, Jr.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Joyce Stanzione appeals a family court order revoking her
  driver's license for failure to pay child support arrears.  She argues that
  the trial court erred in three ways: (1) in finding that she had the
  ability to pay; (2) in ordering the license suspension when it will not
  produce payment and infringes upon her free exercise of religion; and (3)
  in denying her motion to continue.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  Joyce and Neil Stanzione are parents to five children, and
  the entire family lived at one time in the Twelve Tribes Community.  When
  the parties separated in March 1990, father and parties' three sons left
  the Community while mother remained with their two daughters.  In April
  1991, father assigned his child support rights to the State of Vermont as a
  condition of receiving public assistance for the three minor children
  living with him.  The Office of Child Support (OCS) intervened in October
  of 1991 and mother was ordered to pay $50 in child support and $12.50 in
  arrears payments per month.  In 1995, one of the daughters left the
  Community and joined father and her three brothers.  Father filed for
  divorce in 1997, and mother again was ordered to pay $50 per month in child
  support and $12.50 in arrears payments.  The parties were divorced on
  February 12, 1998.  Mother did not appeal either order, and has never made
  any support payments.  On July 31, 1999, the last child in the family
  attained majority.
          
       ¶  3.  In 2001, OCS petitioned to enforce the order, and the Court
  issued an arrears-only enforcement order on February 13, 2002, reducing the
  arrears to a judgment of $4800 and ordering payment to OCS in the sum of
  $62.50 per month.  The magistrate found that at all times since the initial
  1991 order, mother had been a member of the Community, "a religious group
  in which the members live together and share all things in common.  As a
  member of the Community, her needs (food, shelter, etc.) are met by the
  other members, and mother devotes her efforts to meeting the needs of the
  Community by providing care to the children of the Community, cooking, and
  taking care of other members."  The magistrate found that mother was
  healthy, a high school graduate, fifty-one years old, and had not worked
  outside the Community since she joined in 1983.  The magistrate also noted,
  "[a]s a member of the Community, mother receives a pro rata share in the
  income that the Community generates.  Her share in 2000 was $4889.  Her
  share in 2001 will not exceed $5000. (The Community is a recognized
  religious non-profit corporation which pays taxes and meets all other
  obligations to the State.)"  The magistrate entered judgment in favor of
  OCS in the amount of $4800, but declined to award a civil penalty.  

       ¶  4.  On January 2, 2003, OCS again petitioned to enforce the
  arrears order and also to suspend mother's driver's license pursuant to 15
  V.S.A. § 798(b) because mother had made no payments on the $4800 arrears
  judgment.  A notice of the February 26, 2003, hearing was generated on
  January 13, 2003, and the docket entries note that service was complete on
  January 21, although it was signed by another person.  The week prior to
  the hearing, mother moved to dismiss and to stay further enforcement of
  arrears on the grounds that she is a member of the Community, the children
  had attained majority, she was in ill health, had not competed in the job
  market for twenty years, and the remedy requested by OCS would
  unconstitutionally restrict the free exercise of her religion.  In the
  alternative, mother moved to continue the hearing because illness prevented
  her from returning to Vermont from Florida for the February 26 hearing. 
  The magistrate denied all three motions.

       ¶  5.  Mother failed to attend the February 26 hearing, and the
  magistrate granted OCS's petition on that date.  The magistrate ruled that
  although service had been inadequate, mother's three motions filed with the
  court demonstrated that she had received notice and knowledge of the
  hearing based upon which the court made findings of actual knowledge and
  notice.  The magistrate also found that mother had the ability to comply
  with the child support order, and, based on father's uncontested testimony,
  that mother can serve the church in ways not requiring an operator's
  license, that the suspension was not an unreasonable restriction on her
  religious freedom and was the least restrictive remedy available.  The
  order provided that mother could move to reinstate her license upon a lump
  sum payment of $750 and six continuous monthly payments of $62.50 each.  On
  March 27, 2003, mother filed a V.R.C.P. 59 motion for reconsideration and
  for further relief, stating she wished to present evidence of hardship and
  restriction on her religious freedom. The magistrate denied the motions,
  ruling that all issues could have been raised at the hearing date which
  mother failed to attend.  Mother appealed the magistrate's decision to the
  family court on March 28, 2003.  That court affirmed all of the
  magistrate's rulings, and this appeal followed.  

       ¶  6.  Mother challenges the magistrate's determination of her
  ability to pay.  Inability to pay is a statutory defense to a license
  suspension, and the noncomplying party has the burden to demonstrate
  inability to comply with an order to pay.  15 V.S.A. § 798(a).  We review a
  civil sanction determination such as a license suspension for clear error. 
  Mayo v. Mayo, 173 Vt. 459, 462,