Dasler v. Washburn

CourtVermont Superior Court
DecidedSeptember 23, 2024
Docket24-cv-2983
StatusPublished

This text of Dasler v. Washburn (Dasler v. Washburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dasler v. Washburn, (Vt. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Windsor Unit Case No. 24-CV-02983 12 The Green Woodstock VT 05091 802-457-2121 www.vermontjudiciary.org

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

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2 24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn 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 bring a case on behalf 'T.D. under Rule 17(b). That right remains with Ms. Knapp.

Even if Plaintiff was allowed to bring such an action, his filing raises a second significant issue. Plaintiff may not in his capacity as a parent/guardian bring an action in a pro se capacity on

behalf of another. Plaintiff, if he had standing, would, at a 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 a nonattorney guardian may not represent a ward in court proceedings without an attorney

because it would violate the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law and possibly lead to

abuse." Id. The same holds true here where Plaintiff seeks to act as a 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 prosecute a claim on behalf of another.

Based on these two limitations, Plaintiff's motion must be denied as a 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 a stay is Denied. Service deadlines on the complaint remain in place and will have to be satisfied consistent with V.R.C.P. 3 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 2 of 2 24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sandra Baird and Jared Carter
2016 VT 6 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dasler v. Washburn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dasler-v-washburn-vtsuperct-2024.