Court Opinion

ID: 9700255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:17:27.020486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:06.027620
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
dissenting. The nucleus of plaintiff’s motion for reargument is contained in the following statement:
As precedent, the Supreme Court’s holding stands for the proposition that, as a jurisdictional matter, a course of willful, intentional and deliberate parental conduct, warranting the finding of contempt, the imposition of a $4,500.00 monetary sanction and the suspension of all parent-child contact pending completion of a parenting course, in conjunction with the complete cessation of all parent-to-parent communication, does not constitute a real, substantial and unanticipated change of material circumstances.
Appellant goes on to argue that if these facts do not show a change of circumstances to meet the jurisdictional requirement, it is hard “to imagine what does qualify.”
*82Like many arguments of advocates, plaintiff’s statement puts the facts in the light that support her desired result. It is, however, a more accurate portrayal of the facts and claims in this case than the majority’s statement that she claimed only that “the inability of the ‘log’ to facilitate communication between the parties caused a substantial change in circumstances.” I do not think it is fair to characterize contemptuous misconduct as an example of poor communication.
Our rule indicates that reargument is appropriate when this Court has “overlooked or misapprehended” a point raised by an appellant. V.R.A.E 40. Neither the original opinion in this case, nor the one-sentence denial of reargument, responds to the main appeal argument plaintiff has made in the context of the facts of the case. At least, plaintiff deserves an explanation why contemptuous misconduct cannot be changed circumstances to meet the applicable jurisdictional requirement. As a result, I conclude that reargument is warranted under our rule and dissent from the refusal to grant it. I am authorized to state that Justice Morse joins in this dissent.