Title: State v. Wooten

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Wooten (98-553); 170 Vt. 485; 756 A.2d 122

[Opinion Filed 07-Apr-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 10-May-2000]

       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. 98-553

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont
                                                 Unit No. 3, Essex Circuit

Stephen V. Wootten	                         September Term, 1999

John P. Meaker, J.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen V. Wootten, Pro Se, Island Pond, Defendant-Appellee.

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

       JOHNSON, J.  In this case, we decide whether Vermont has jurisdiction
  over the crime of  custodial interference where defendant took his children
  from the state of Vermont while he was the  lawful custodian.  The State
  contends that, where the children and defendant were Vermont residents 
  before defendant absconded, the orders of a Vermont court were flouted, and
  the taking of the  children occurred in Vermont, Vermont has jurisdiction
  to prosecute defendant.  We agree,  reverse  the trial court's dismissal,
  and reinstate the charges against defendant.

       Laurie Marrano and Stephen Wootten married and had two boys, Seth and
  Nathaniel.  They  lived with the Community Church in Island Pond, Vermont. 
  In 1987, mother  returned to her home 

 

  in western New York, and the boys stayed in defendant's care in Island
  Pond.  In June 1989, mother  filed for divorce in Vermont, not seeking
  custody of the boys.  On September 5, 1989, she amended  her complaint to
  request custody. 

       On September 5, 1989, the Essex Family Court held a hearing on the
  issue of custody.   Mother testified that she loved her children and wanted
  to raise them.  She explained that in the two  years since she had left
  Island Pond, her visitation with the boys had been extremely limited and 
  always supervised.  She also testified that defendant had warned her he
  would take the children and  "disappear" if she sought custody.  The court
  specifically found that mother had seen the children  only six or seven
  times over two years, visitation had always been supervised, and she had
  sent  letters and presents that she believed defendant had not given to the
  children. The court also found  that defendant had threatened to disappear
  with the children, but said, "hopefully [that is] no longer  a current
  threat."  It concluded that there was no evidence that mother would be a
  negative influence  on the children and that it would be in the best
  interests of the children to have contact with both  parents. 

       The court therefore ordered that defendant should have temporary
  physical custody until  September 27 at 3:00 p.m. and that mother have
  unsupervised, separate visitation with the boys on  September 6 and
  September 26, in Vermont.  The court further ordered, "neither party shall
  remove  the children, Seth and Nathan, from the State of Vermont pending
  further order of this court."  Both  parties had notice that the September
  27 hearing would revisit the issue of custody.

       On September 26, mother went to Island Pond to pick up the boys for
  the court-ordered  visitation and was told by a church member that
  defendant had taken the children away.  Defendant  failed to appear at the
  custody hearing on September 27.  The family court took evidence and made 

 

  findings that defendant had failed to obtain needed medical care for the
  children in the past, and was  not fostering a relationship between the
  children and their mother.  The court also noted that  defendant had failed
  to appear at the hearing and that the location of the children was unknown.  
  The  court therefore awarded temporary custody to mother, which was made
  permanent in 1990. (FN1)  The following day, the state of Vermont charged
  defendant with custodial interference, dating from  September 27. 

       Affidavits from the Wootten children presented to the trial court
  detail their experience of  the seven and a half years between September
  1989 and March 1997.  Defendant took the children  into hiding with him
  when he fled Vermont in September 1989.  Over the years following,
  defendant  moved the family at least eight times.  Defendant adopted a
  false identity and gave the boys false  names.  The boys, aged six and
  eight when abducted, were never enrolled in school for the seven  years
  they lived with their father in hiding.  Nor were they permitted to
  participate in any activities  that required positive identification.  Both
  affidavits state that defendant told the children they were  running and
  hiding from mother, who was trying to locate them.  

       In March 1997, defendant was finally located in Florida, and the boys
  were returned to  mother in Oswego, New York.  He was arrested and waived
  extradition to Vermont.  On October  21, 1997, he filed a motion to dismiss
  for lack of a prima facie case, alleging that the State could not  show he
  "knowingly" kept the children from mother.  The district court denied the
  motion, having 

 

  determined that defendant knowingly kept mother and the authorities from
  discovering the children's  whereabouts.  The court specifically noted
  that, although defendant was "not physically served with  the September 28,
  1989, Order," that factor was not dispositive because there was substantial 
  evidence that defendant actually knew he was interfering with custodial
  rights. 

       On August 31, 1998, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
  jurisdiction.   The State  responded that Vermont had jurisdiction because
  the children were Vermont residents who were  injured by defendant's
  conduct and because defendant violated a superior court order prohibiting
  the  removal of the children.  On December 3, 1998, the court dismissed the
  State's case for lack of  jurisdiction based on our decision in State v.
  Doyen, 165 Vt. 43,