Case Title: Jakab v. Jakab

Citation: 163 Vt 575, 664 A.2d 261

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
JAKAB_V_JAKAB.94-348; 163 Vt 575; 664 A.2d 261

[Filed 23-Jun-1995]

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. 94-348


Paula Jakab                                       Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Windham Family Court

Danny Jakab                                       January Term, 1995


Paul F. Hudson, J.

Jean Anne Kiewel of Kiewel & Harris, P.C., Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellee

Richard H. Coutant of Salmon & Nostrand, Bellows Falls, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Danny Jakab appeals the Windham Family Court's
decision in the divorce action brought by plaintiff Paula Jakab.  Defendant
raises three arguments on appeal:  (1) that the trial court erred by taking
judicial notice of testimony given by one of the parties' children at a prior
proceeding; (2) that the trial court violated defendant's religious freedom
under the United States and Vermont Constitutions because it improperly based
its visitation order on evidence relating to his religious beliefs; and (3)
that the trial court improperly awarded the marital residence to plaintiff
based on a request made after the evidence was closed. Although we reject
defendant's arguments, we strike part of the visitation order because it
violates 15 V.S.A.  664(1).  In all other respects, we affirm. 

     The parties were married in 1976 and separated in 1991.  They have five
children, the oldest of whom is plaintiff's by a previous marriage.  The
trial court found that the marriage was marred by defendant's extreme
outbursts of rage and cruelty, which were often targeted directly at the
couple's children or plaintiff.  In 1992, the trial court issued a temporary
order that gave plaintiff full parental rights over the minor children, and
strictly limited defendant's 

  

visitation with his children.  In 1993, the Commissioner of Social and
Rehabilitation Services (SRS) took custody of the children due to plaintiff's
prolonged illness and reports of child abuse against defendant; the family
court conducted a Child in Need of Care and Supervision (CHINS) merits
hearing in April of 1993.  By the final divorce hearing in December of 1993,
all of the children except one had been returned to plaintiff's custody.(FN1)

                                I.

     Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by taking judicial
notice of testimony given by one of the children at the CHINS merits hearing
in April of 1993.  The testimony given by the child concerned defendant's
abusive methods of disciplining the children, and the trial court used much
of this testimony to corroborate its findings on this point.  Defendant
argues that the determination of parental rights and responsibilities, the
visitation order and the property distribution all rest on these findings,
and must be reversed because of the alleged error. 

     Prior to the adoption of the Vermont Rules of Evidence we held that
"[i]t is improper for a court to take judicial notice of the files, records
and judgment in a case other than that on trial."  In re Estate of Leno, 139
Vt. 554, 557,