Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-391 

APRIL TERM, 2011 

Valerie Gadreault } APPEALED FROM: 

} 

} 

 v. } Superior Court, Washington Unit, 

} Family Division 

} 

Raymond R. Gadreault } DOCKET NO. F174-7-10 Wnfa 

 

 Trial Judge: Brian J. Grearson 

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

Defendant appeals pro se from final relief from abuse order. He contends: (1) 

complainant’s allegations that he engaged in violent and stalking behavior were false; (2) his 

due process and other constitutional rights were violated when he was not granted a continuance, 

allowed to question complainant and call witnesses, or afforded a jury trial; and (3) the order 

violated the Second and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution by requiring that 

a law enforcement officer remove all weapons from the parties’ home. We affirm. 

On July 6, 2010, complainant filed a complaint for relief-from-abuse alleging that 

defendant had been abusive, threatened to kill her, and choked and hit her. The court issued a 

temporary order that day, and scheduled a hearing for July 15, 2010. Defendant filed a motion to 

modify the temporary order on July 8, 2010, which the court indicated it would address at the 

final hearing. The docket entries show that a final hearing was held on July 15, 2010, and that 

the parties were present. The court issued a final order that day, finding that defendant had 

attempted to cause complainant physical harm and placed her in fear of imminent serious 

physical harm, that there was a danger of further abuse, and that defendant represented a credible 

threat to the physical safety of complainant. The order required that defendant refrain from 

further abuse, threats, or harassment; not contact complainant in any way; remain 300 feet away 

from complainant, her residence, place of employment, and motor vehicle; and remove his 

personal effects from the parties’ residence in the company of a law enforcement officer, who 

was authorized to remove any weapons in the home. This appeal followed. 

As noted, defendant has raised numerous claims on appeal contesting the reliability of the 

evidence in support of the order, the constitutionality of the process he was afforded at the 

hearing, and the constitutional validity of portions of the order. Defendant did not order or 

provide the Court with a transcript or recording of the hearing, however, rendering it impossible 

for the Court to examine the evidence or the hearing procedures in question, or to determine that 

the various claims on appeal were properly raised below and preserved for review on appeal. It 

is the appellant’s burden to provide a record sufficient to show that he preserved the claims 

raised on appeal and to allow informed review of those claims, and to omit a transcript necessary 

for this review is to forfeit the claims. See State v. Synnott, 2005 VT 19, ¶ 25, 178 Vt. 66 

(declining to consider argument because defendant failed to produce a record showing alleged 
2

error); State v. Gadreault, 171 Vt. 534, 538 (2000) (mem.) (holding that defendant’s failure to 

produce transcript demonstrating that he preserved issue for review precluded review on appeal); 

Appliance Acceptance Co. v. Stevens, 121 Vt. 484, 488 (1960) (“To omit to incorporate into the 

record on appeal the transcript of applicable testimony and proceedings without authorization is 

to forfeit review of questions requiring reference to the transcript.”). Accordingly, we discern no 

basis to disturb the judgment. 

Affirmed. 

 BY THE COURT: 

_______________________________________ 

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice 

_______________________________________ 

Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice