Title: LaMoria v. LaMoria

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

LaMoria v. LaMoria (99-359); 171 Vt. 559; 762 A.2d 1233 

[Filed 19-Jul-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 1-Sep-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-359

                               MAY TERM, 2000

Dianne LaMoria	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Rutland Family Court
                                       }	
Raymond LaMoria	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 236-5-96 RcFa
                                                           281-7-92 Rddm

                                                Trial Judges: Silvio T. Valente
                                                           Francis B. McCaffrey  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Mother Dianne LaMoria appeals from the denial of several discovery
  motions and a motion  for modification of custody and visitation.  She also
  alleges that the court erred by: (1) refusing to  permit depositions of
  Lisa Casey, Shayna LaMoria, and Douglas Andrews; (2) refusing to order a 
  forensic family evaluation; (3) failing to consider evidence of father's
  parenting abilities in the  original order awarding him sole parental
  rights and responsibilities; (4) improperly delegating  authority over
  parent-child contact to a counselor; (5) failing to rule on her Daubert
  challenge to the  counselor's admission as an expert; (6) extending the
  relief-from-abuse order; (7) making findings  that are not supported by the
  evidence; and (8) improperly modifying custody in a relief-from-abuse 
  (RFA) petition.  We affirm.

       Mother and father, Raymond LaMoria, divorced in 1993 and shared joint
  legal and physical  rights and responsibilities for their only daughter,
  Shayna, born in 1990.   In the words of the court,  "[a] complete 
  breakdown in the parties' relationship . . . occurred" in the years 1993 to
  1996.  During  that time mother made several allegations to the Department
  of Social and Rehabilitation Services  (SRS) that father was sexually
  assaulting Shayna.  Each accusation was investigated and found by  SRS to
  be unsubstantiated.   Father believed that Shayna was suffering emotional
  harm because  mother had pushed Shayna to make these allegations and
  because Shayna was a witness to the  breakdown of mother and father's
  relationship in these years.  Therefore, in 1996, father moved for  sole
  legal and physical parental rights.  After hearing evidence over many days,
  the Rutland Family  Court modified the divorce order and granted father
  sole legal and physical responsibility for Shayna.  The court also granted
  mother supervised visitation with Shayna for one hour a week.  Mother 
  never appealed this order, dated December 23, 1996.  

 

       In May 1996, father requested a RFA order based on mother's violent
  behavior toward him.   As in the custody proceeding, the court heard
  numerous days of testimony over a long period of time.  In January 1997,
  the court granted a final RFA order, which has been extended several times
  at  father's request.  Most recently, father requested an extension, and
  this request was heard along with  mother's motions for discovery and
  modification of custody and visitation.  In the order dated July  15, 1999,
  in which the court found no changed circumstances to permit modification,
  the court  extended the RFA order based on the evidence that issues between
  mother and father were still  "contentious" and unresolved.   On appeal to
  this court, mother objects to the extension.   
	
       In July 1997, mother moved to modify the December order granting
  father sole custody of  Shayna and to modify the visitation set out in that
  order.  She requested discovery pursuant to  V.R.F.P. 4 (g)(2)(A) & 5
  (depositions not on issues of support, maintenance, or property division 
  may be taken only for good cause shown, and court may order home study). 
  The request for a  forensic family evaluation was denied in an order dated
  January 29, 1998, which mother did not  appeal.  The court denied her
  motions for deposition, and, as threshold matter, found no change in 
  circumstances sufficient to permit reconsideration of the custody and
  visitation decisions. Mother  appeals.  

       A number of mother's claims of error must be dismissed at the outset
  because they have not  been properly preserved.  See Miller v. A.N.
  Deringer, Inc., 146 Vt. 59, 60,