Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2

24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Windsor Unit

12 The Green

Woodstock VT 05091

802-457-2121

www.vermontjudiciary.org

Case No. 24-CV-02983

Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Motion to Join MINOR CHILD TO CASE (Motion: 1)

Filer: Timothy P. Dasler

Filed Date: August 01, 2024

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff Dasler seeks permission to join a minor child as a party to the present case. From 

his filings, it appears that he wishes to join his minor child, T.D., as a Plaintiff and to bring the 

present matter on both his and his child’s behalf. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is filed pursuant to the Windsor County Superior Court’s December 4, 

2023 Order Restricting Abusive Litigation, which provides that “Until further order of the court, 

Timothy Dasler shall be restricted from filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing litigation against 

Jennifer Knapp UNLESS 1) a duly licensed attorney who has entered an appearance on Mr. 

Dasler’s behalf (not a limited appearance) files a motion or other action, OR 2) Mr. Dasler files a 

petition to obtain pre-filing approval from the court requesting permission to file a motion or other 

action involving Ms. Knapp AND the court grants the petition to file.” Knapp v. Dasler, Dckt. No. 

74-6-17 Oedm (Dec. 4, 2023) (Warren, J.) (emphasis in the original). 

Before the Court can consider whether Plaintiff Dasler’s proposed motion is permitted 

under the December 4, 2023 Order Restricting Abusive Litigation, there is a threshold issue of 

standing. Baird v. City of Burlington, 2016 VT 6, ¶ 15 (generally parties may not bring actions on 

behalf of another unless they can establish an exception to this rule). In reviewing Docket No. 74-6-

17 Oedm, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s ex-spouse currently holds the Parental Rights and Legal 

Responsibilities for T.D. Dasler v Dasler, Dckt. No. 2020-146, at 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) (unpub. mem.). As 

the holder of legal responsibilities, it is mother’s sole responsibility to advance litigation on behalf of 
the minor. 15 V.S.A. 664(1)(A); V.R.C.P. 17(b). Thus, the present motion cannot succeed as

Plaintiff lacks the authority to bringcase on behalf 'T.D. under Rule 17(b). That right remains with Ms. Knapp.

Even if Plaintiff was allowed to bringsuch an action, his filingraises second significant

issue. Plaintiff may not in his capacityas parent/guardian bringan action in pro se capacity on

behalf of another. Plaintiff, if he had standing, would, at minimum, have to also retain counsel to

represent T.D. Sxelgrove

v. LeBlanc, 2023 VT 114,15. As the Court in Svelgrove holds, "We conclude

that nonattorney guardian may not represent ward in court proceedings without an attorney because it would violate the prohibition against

the unauthorized practice of law and possiblylead to

abuse." Id. The same holds true here where Plaintiff seeks to act as self-represented litigant on his

own behalf and on behalf of his minor child. Thus,

in addition to the standing limitation, Plaintiffs motion and complaint

lacks the necessary attorney representation needed to prosecuteclaim on

behalf of another.

Based on these two limitations, Plaintiff's motion must be denied as matter of law, and the

Court does not reach the question of whether Plaintiffs request to file on behalf of his minor child

violates the December 4, 2023 Order Restrictive Abusive Litigation. The Motion to add T.D. to the

present filing

is Denied.

Additionally, PlaintifPs motion for stay

is Denied. Service deadlines on the complaint

remain in placeand will have to be satisfied consistent with V.R.C.P. and 4.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 9/10/2024 8:41 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

Daniel Richardson

Superior Court Judge

Vermont Superior Court Filed 09/11/24 Windsor Unit

Entry Regarding Motion Page of 24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn