in re riley

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-cv-1451
• Status: Published

Opinion

Vermont Superior Court Filed 04/01 2_4 Washmgton mt

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT £3: CIVIL DIVISION Washington Unit Case N0. 23-CV-01451 65 State Street f1 Montpelier VT 05602 802—828—2091

www.vermontjudiciary.org

In re: Riley, Samuel

Ruling on Motion for Contempt

This case is an appeal from the March 14, 2023, decision of the probate division in

the adult guardianship of Mr. Samuel Riley, Who is nonverbal. In re Riley, No. 21-PR-

2856. Samuel’s mother, Katherine Porter, serves as guardian. The guardianship order

provides for contact between Samuel and his father, Daniel Riley, subject to Samuel’s

assent. Following a long period with no contact, Father filed a motion to enforce in the

probate court. That led to the probate court’s March 14 decision, which ordered a

forward-looking process by which a neutral third party (not Mother) would discern

Samuel’s true intent as to whether he wishes to have contact with Father. Father

appealed that order to this Court.

This Court appointed Attorney Sheilagh Smith to represent Samuel in this appeal.

Attorney Smith now has filed a motion in this case seeking to enforce the probate court’s

March 14 decision, contending that Mother has intentionally violated it repeatedly and

should be held in contempt, and the Court should impose sanctions. The motion raises

serious and important concerns. The Court does not believe the appeal process is the

appropriate venue to address those issues, however.

The Court has questions as to its jurisdiction over the appeal in this matter and

has set a briefing schedule to decide that issue. It is on firmer ground in concluding that

Order Page 1 of 3 23—CV-01451 In re: Riley, Samuel it lacks jurisdiction for the instant motion. In the Court’s view, the proper venue for such

a motion is the probate division that entered the order subject to enforcement. “It is

axiomatic that a court must have the power to enforce its own orders.” Aither v. Est. of

Aither, 2006 VT 111, ¶ 11, 180 Vt. 472, 478 (quoting Lindsey v. Lindsey, 492 A.2d 396,

398 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); see also E.O.H.C. v. Sec’y United States Dep’t of Homeland

Sec., 950 F.3d 177, 194 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ach court ‘has the inherent power to enforce its

own orders,’ but generally lacks the power to enforce orders of other courts.’” (citation

omitted)). The March 14 decision is not stayed in the probate division. See Vt. R. Prob.

P. 62 (“There is no automatic stay concerning . . . orders issued under . . . 14 V.S.A.

chapter 111, subchapter 12 [persons in need of guardianship].”); cf. Vt. R. Civ. P. 62(a)(4)

(same as to probate appeals). Probate Rule 62(f) specifically provides: “During the

pendency of an appeal, the probate court retains jurisdiction as to matters not involved

in the appeal as determined from the questions presented [on appeal]. The court also

retains jurisdiction to grant or deny motions for modification of the judgment.” This

includes the power to enforce a judgment that is not stayed via contempt. See U.S.

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Escobio, 946 F.3d 1242, 1251 (11th Cir. 2020)

(“Absent entry of a stay, [the lower court] retains jurisdiction to enforce its judgment—

via contempt or other means—during the pendency of an appeal.”); Resol. Tr. Corp. v.

Smith, 53 F.3d 72, 76 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A [lower court] has continuing jurisdiction in

support of its judgment, and ‘[u]ntil the judgment has been properly stayed or

superseded, [it] may enforce it through contempt sanction.’”). The probate division

retains jurisdiction to address the contempt matter, which only makes sense. It is the

Order Page 2 of 3 23-CV-01451 In re: Riley, Samuel probate division that issued the order after hearing and is best positioned to assess

ongoing compliance with its commands.

To the extent that counsel may have filed in the civil division because her

appointment is limited to representing Samuel in the appeal, the Court hereby expands

the scope of her appointment (if she remains willing) to include proceedings relating to

the enforcement, modification of, or contempt of the March 14 decision in the probate

division.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to enforce is denied without prejudice as

moot. Counsel may promptly refile in the probate division.

Electronically signed on Monday, April 1, 2024, per V.R.E.F. 9(d).

_______________________ Timothy B. Tomasi Superior Court Judge

Order Page 3 of 3 23-CV-01451 In re: Riley, Samuel