Office of Child Support v. Stanzione
Annotate this Case
Office of Child Support v. Stanzione (2004-426); 180 Vt. 629; 910 A.2d 882
2006 VT 98
[Filed 13-Sep-2006]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 24-Oct-2006]
ENTRY ORDER
2006 VT 98
SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-426
SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005
Office of Child Support, ex rel. } APPEALED FROM:
Neil Stanzione }
}
v. } Orleans Family Court
}
Joyce Stanzione }
} DOCKET NO. 84-4-97 Osdm
Trial Judge: Walter M.
Morris, Jr.
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
¶ 1. Joyce Stanzione appeals a family court order revoking her
driver's license for failure to pay child support arrears. She argues that
the trial court erred in three ways: (1) in finding that she had the
ability to pay; (2) in ordering the license suspension when it will not
produce payment and infringes upon her free exercise of religion; and (3)
in denying her motion to continue. We affirm.
¶ 2. Joyce and Neil Stanzione are parents to five children, and
the entire family lived at one time in the Twelve Tribes Community. When
the parties separated in March 1990, father and parties' three sons left
the Community while mother remained with their two daughters. In April
1991, father assigned his child support rights to the State of Vermont as a
condition of receiving public assistance for the three minor children
living with him. The Office of Child Support (OCS) intervened in October
of 1991 and mother was ordered to pay $50 in child support and $12.50 in
arrears payments per month. In 1995, one of the daughters left the
Community and joined father and her three brothers. Father filed for
divorce in 1997, and mother again was ordered to pay $50 per month in child
support and $12.50 in arrears payments. The parties were divorced on
February 12, 1998. Mother did not appeal either order, and has never made
any support payments. On July 31, 1999, the last child in the family
attained majority.
¶ 3. In 2001, OCS petitioned to enforce the order, and the Court
issued an arrears-only enforcement order on February 13, 2002, reducing the
arrears to a judgment of $4800 and ordering payment to OCS in the sum of
$62.50 per month. The magistrate found that at all times since the initial
1991 order, mother had been a member of the Community, "a religious group
in which the members live together and share all things in common. As a
member of the Community, her needs (food, shelter, etc.) are met by the
other members, and mother devotes her efforts to meeting the needs of the
Community by providing care to the children of the Community, cooking, and
taking care of other members." The magistrate found that mother was
healthy, a high school graduate, fifty-one years old, and had not worked
outside the Community since she joined in 1983. The magistrate also noted,
"[a]s a member of the Community, mother receives a pro rata share in the
income that the Community generates. Her share in 2000 was $4889. Her
share in 2001 will not exceed $5000. (The Community is a recognized
religious non-profit corporation which pays taxes and meets all other
obligations to the State.)" The magistrate entered judgment in favor of
OCS in the amount of $4800, but declined to award a civil penalty.
¶ 4. On January 2, 2003, OCS again petitioned to enforce the
arrears order and also to suspend mother's driver's license pursuant to 15
V.S.A. § 798(b) because mother had made no payments on the $4800 arrears
judgment. A notice of the February 26, 2003, hearing was generated on
January 13, 2003, and the docket entries note that service was complete on
January 21, although it was signed by another person. The week prior to
the hearing, mother moved to dismiss and to stay further enforcement of
arrears on the grounds that she is a member of the Community, the children
had attained majority, she was in ill health, had not competed in the job
market for twenty years, and the remedy requested by OCS would
unconstitutionally restrict the free exercise of her religion. In the
alternative, mother moved to continue the hearing because illness prevented
her from returning to Vermont from Florida for the February 26 hearing.
The magistrate denied all three motions.
¶ 5. Mother failed to attend the February 26 hearing, and the
magistrate granted OCS's petition on that date. The magistrate ruled that
although service had been inadequate, mother's three motions filed with the
court demonstrated that she had received notice and knowledge of the
hearing based upon which the court made findings of actual knowledge and
notice. The magistrate also found that mother had the ability to comply
with the child support order, and, based on father's uncontested testimony,
that mother can serve the church in ways not requiring an operator's
license, that the suspension was not an unreasonable restriction on her
religious freedom and was the least restrictive remedy available. The
order provided that mother could move to reinstate her license upon a lump
sum payment of $750 and six continuous monthly payments of $62.50 each. On
March 27, 2003, mother filed a V.R.C.P. 59 motion for reconsideration and
for further relief, stating she wished to present evidence of hardship and
restriction on her religious freedom. The magistrate denied the motions,
ruling that all issues could have been raised at the hearing date which
mother failed to attend. Mother appealed the magistrate's decision to the
family court on March 28, 2003. That court affirmed all of the
magistrate's rulings, and this appeal followed.
¶ 6. Mother challenges the magistrate's determination of her
ability to pay. Inability to pay is a statutory defense to a license
suspension, and the noncomplying party has the burden to demonstrate
inability to comply with an order to pay. 15 V.S.A. § 798(a). We review a
civil sanction determination such as a license suspension for clear error.
Mayo v. Mayo, 173 Vt. 459, 462, 786 A.2d 401, 406 (2001) (review of
contempt finding is for clear error). We will not disturb the judgment on
appeal, then, "unless the court's discretion was entirely withheld or was
exercised on grounds clearly untenable." Id. (citation omitted). We will
not set aside findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and we review them
in the "light most favorable to the prevailing party, disregarding
modifying evidence, with the burden on the appellant to show that there is
no credible evidence to support the findings." Id.
¶ 7. Although the February 2003 license suspension order does not
contain specific findings regarding mother's ability to pay, at the hearing
the magistrate referenced the findings in the February 2002 enforcement
order. In the 2002 order, the magistrate addressed mother's membership in
the Community, her pro rata share of the Community's income, and her age,
health, and education level.
¶ 8. Mother does not dispute those findings as erroneous; instead,
she contends that, lacking actual personal income, she has no ability to
pay. Where an obligor claims financial inability to pay, the court must
find a present ability before imposing a civil sanction. Hunt v. Hunt, 162
Vt. 423, 436, 648 A.2d 843, 853 (1994). The magistrate found, within the
exercise of her discretion, a present ability to pay based on mother's pro
rata share of the Community income and her age, health, and education.
This is in accord with the definition of "available income" in our child
custody and support statute. 15 V.S.A. § 653. The Legislature has defined
"available income" as "gross income"-with deductions not applicable under
these facts-and "gross income," in turn, as "expense reimbursements or
in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of employment . . . if
they reduce personal living expenses." Id. § 653 (1), (5)(A)(i)-(ii).
"Gross income" also includes, under the statute, "the potential income of a
parent who is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed." Id. §
653(5)(A)(iii). Mother failed to meet her burden to prove inability to
pay. She is not "powerless" to comply with the order; instead, she
"refuses to abide by [it]." Mayo, 173 Vt. at 462, 786 A.3d at 406. We
find no abuse of discretion.
¶ 9. Our decision in Lambert v. Beede does not compel a different
result. 2003 VT 75, ¶¶ 8-9, 175 Vt. 610, 830 A.2d 133 (mem.). There,
father's inability to pay due to physical disability was undisputed; the
issue was whether an obligor "with an inability to pay can be denied
reinstatement of his license under § 798(c)." Id. ¶ 9; see 15 V.S.A. §
653(5)(A)(iii)(I) (excluding from "available income" the potential income
of a parent who is physically or mentally disabled). Father had become
disabled subsequent to the license suspension and, in recognition of his
resultant inability to pay, the magistrate reduced both the child support
and arrearage orders to $0 per month yet refused to reinstate his driver's
license because of father's lack of "good faith" efforts of payment prior
to onset of his disability. We held that § 798(c) necessarily includes an
inability-to-pay defense and so reversed the magistrate's order denying
reinstatement because it "improperly transform[ed] a measure designed to
coerce payment into a punitive device." Id. ¶ 1. "[C]ivil sanctions aim
to compel compliance rather than punish," and the proper tool to determine
whether the sanction amounts to coercion rather than punishment is the
ability-to-pay analysis. Id. ¶ 12. Here, mother has the ability to pay
under the statutory definition of "available income," and her claim that
there is no reasonable likelihood that the order will coerce her into
compliance does not strip the State of an available enforcement remedy, so
long as it does not infringe upon mother's free exercise of her religion.
¶ 10. Because we find the license suspension order otherwise
affirmable, we consider whether it impermissibly infringes upon mother's
free exercise of her religious beliefs under the federal and state
constitutions. Even under the most stringent potential test, we conclude
that it does not. See Brady v. Dean, 173 Vt. 542, 546, 790 A.2d 428,
433-34 (2001) (mem.) (discussing potential tests under state constitution).
Under the strictest test, a state may burden religious liberty if the
license suspension advances a compelling governmental interest and the
state uses the least restrictive means to advance that interest, but mother
must first make a threshold showing that the license suspension is a
substantial burden on the free exercise of her sincerely-held religious
beliefs. Hunt v. Hunt, 162 Vt. 423, 432, 648 A.2d 843, 850 (1994); Brady,
173 Vt. at 546, 790 A.2d at 433-34. (FN1)
¶ 11. Mother has not made this threshold showing. Mother had
notice of the hearing and was absent, and so presented no evidence on this
point. The magistrate was instead persuaded by the testimony of father, a
former Community member, that mother could exercise her religious beliefs
without a driver's license. Mother has not shown that suspending her
driver's license would substantially burden her free exercise of religion,
and we need not proceed further in the free exercise analysis.
¶ 12. Mother also attempts to challenge the underlying 1997 child
support order imposing $50 per month. Mother never appealed that order;
this appeal arises from an enforcement action. Accordingly, this claim is
out of time. V.R.C.P. 60(b).
¶ 13. Finally, mother argues that the magistrate abused her
discretion in refusing to grant a continuance of the license suspension
hearing. The denial of a motion to continue will not be reversed absent a
clear abuse of discretion, State v. Stenson, 169 Vt. 590, 593, 738 A.2d 567, 571 (1999) (mem.), and to support an abuse of discretion claim, mother
must show that the magistrate either totally withheld her discretion or
exercised it on grounds clearly untenable. Trotier v. Bassett, 174 Vt.
520, 523, 811 A.2d 166, 170 (2002) (mem.).
¶ 14. Mother argues that the magistrate abused her discretion for
several reasons. First, she claims the magistrate wrongly dismissed her
motion as untimely because although mother did receive actual notice,
service was inadequate so the magistrate had no proof of when mother
actually received notice. But mother sought a continuance for health
reasons, not because of inadequate service, and thus waived this claim.
Mother next argues that the magistrate ignored the evidence substantiating
her claim that illness limited her ability to travel. The record reveals
she had a radiology consultation and a note from a physician acknowledging
his treatment of mother, but there is no evidence that mother could not
travel. As to other arguments, the fact that OCS did not oppose mother's
motion and mother had no history of seeking continuances did not require
the magistrate to grant the continuance, nor was the magistrate required to
make written findings to support the denial of the continuance. See
V.R.C.P. 52(a)(3) (setting forth circumstances when motion decisions
require written findings).
¶ 15. Finally, mother charges that she was denied due process
because the court did not instruct that she could participate in the
hearing by telephone. This argument does not have merit. In Town of
Randolph v. White, on which mother relies, this Court held that the town
failed to provide adequate notice of a zoning violation and therefore did
not satisfy due process when it instructed the defendant to remove
violating junk or face fines, but failed to inform him that he could
contest the administrator's decision. 166 Vt. 280, 283, 285, 693 A.2d 694,
695, 696-97 (1997). Here, there is no dispute that mother received actual
notice of the hearing and that the notice reasonably informed mother of the
opportunity to present her objections at that hearing. Any lack of notice
regarding participation by telephone as an additional potential opportunity
to be heard does not amount to a due process violation, and does not help
mother's claim regarding denial of a continuance. We find no abuse of
discretion.
Affirmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting
¶ 16. DOOLEY, J., dissenting. This case is entirely controlled by
Lambert v. Beede, 2003 VT 75, 175 Vt. 610, 830 A.2d 133 (mem.), and the
suspension of mother's operator's license should be reversed because of her
inability to pay the child support arrearage. While I agree that the
magistrate acted within her discretion in denying the motion to continue,
the record before her conclusively showed inability to pay.
¶ 17. Under the child support enforcement statute, a current
inability to pay is a complete defense to a license suspension to enforce
child support orders. 15 V.S.A. § 798(a) ("An inability to comply shall be
a defense in an action brought under this subsection."). We summarized the
applicable law in Lambert:
Although the payment of child support is a serious obligation, the
state enforces payment orders against noncompliants through
various civil rather than criminal sanctions. . . . To avoid
qualifying as punishment, a civil sanction such as license
suspension "must be capable of being avoided by defendants through
adherence to the court's order." Sheehan v. Ryea, 171 Vt. 511,
512, 757 A.2d 467, 468 (2000) (mem.); see also Russell v.
Armitage, 166 Vt. 392, 399, 697 A.2d 630, 635 (1997) (citing
ability to comply as one of three issues requiring consideration
in every hearing regarding civil contempt for failure to pay child
support).
In contrast to criminal sanctions, civil sanctions aim to compel
compliance rather than to punish those in contempt. A court must
therefore consider a child support debtor's ability to pay before
imposing a civil sanction. Sheehan, 171 Vt. at 512 13, 757 A.2d
at 468 69 (declaring incarceration an improper sanction for an
individual in contempt of child support obligations who does not
have the ability to pay these obligations); Spabile v. Hunt, 134
Vt. 332, 335 36, 360 A.2d 51, 52 53 (1976) (sanction for
noncompliance with child support payments inappropriate where it
does not contain any findings as to the husband's ability to meet
his court decreed obligations); Andrews v. Andrews, 134 Vt. 47,
49, 349 A.2d 239, 241 (1975) ("Civil contempt can be found where a
party, though able, refuses to comply with a valid, specific court
order."). We have also required courts to consider ability to
comply before ordering sanctions that are less restrictive than
incarceration. Mayo v. Mayo, 173 Vt. 459, 463 64, 786 A.2d 401,
407 (2001) (mem.) (rejecting modification of a noncompliant's
final divorce order as an inappropriate child support enforcement
sanction where evidence did not establish financial ability to
make support payments). We must therefore administer § 798(c)'s
license suspension provisions consistent with our other civil
sanctions, recognizing ability to comply as a prerequisite to
enforcement.
The purpose of the child support enforcement statutes is to ensure
that children enjoy the "standard of living [they] would have
enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved." 15 V.S.A. § 650
(setting out the purpose of all child support provisions and
enforcement measures). Here, where an individual is unable to pay
due to an income of only $796 per month in disability benefits and
his children have reached the age of majority, the statutory
purpose can no longer be satisfied. Along with producing little
benefit, upholding the decision below would improperly convert §
798 into a punitive measure, as Beede cannot pay his outstanding
arrearage of $29,269.28 or regress in time to make the good faith
efforts required of him by the magistrate. If Beede should ever
receive an inheritance, or should he win the lottery, 33 V.S.A. §§
3902(e) and 3903 will ensure that these funds go towards settling
his arrearage. In the meantime, Vermont law does not allow the
state to continue his license suspension under 15 V.S.A. § 798 as
a punishment for his past behavior.
2003 VT 75, ¶¶ 11-13. The majority holds that the requirements of Lambert
have been met in this case because the magistrate and the family court
explicitly found that mother has the ability to pay the outstanding child
support arrearage on which the license suspension is based.
¶ 18. I agree that the magistrate checked a box to find that mother
has the ability to pay the arrearage, and the family court affirmed. The
majority concedes, however, that the license suspension order "does not
contain specific findings regarding mother's ability to pay." In fact,
there is no evidence to support this conclusion, and the findings are
inconsistent with the conclusion. The magistrate found orally that
mother's income is "support through the church but . . . she herself
receives no wages or other means of income which is subject to any remedy
that the court has tried to exercise." This magistrate was also the
magistrate in 2002 when OCS last sought enforcement of mother's child
support obligation. The magistrate found then:
At all times since the nominal support was first ordered in
1991, Mother has been a member of the Twelve Tribes Community.
The Community is a religious group in which the members live
together and share all things in common. As a member of the
Community, her needs (food, shelter, etc.) are met by the other
members, and Mother devotes her efforts to meeting the needs of
the Community by providing care to the children of the Community,
cooking, and taking care of other members.
Mother is physically healthy. She is a high school graduate. She
is 51 years old. She has not worked outside the Community since
she joined in 1983.
As a member of the Community, Mother receives a pro rata share in
the income that the Community generates. Her share in 2000 was
$4889. Her share in 2001 will not exceed $5000.
If the latter finding involved cash to mother, there would be support for
the magistrate's conclusion that mother has the ability to pay the child
support arrearage. It is undisputed, however, that mother has no actual
income as the magistrate found in this proceeding. OCS acknowledged this
reality in its oral argument to this Court. The pro rata share to which
the magistrate referred in 2002 is only the paper value of mother's
services as the church reported for tax purposes. (FN2) That amount was
$4,889 per year.
¶ 19. This brings us to the heart of the matter. The majority
concludes that mother has the ability to pay "based on mother's pro rata
share of the Community income and her age, health and education." Ante,
¶ 5. Specifically, it holds that ability to pay must be determined based
on the statutory definition of available income in 15 V.S.A. § 653 to
include "in-kind payments" and the "potential income of a parent who is
voluntarily unemployed and underemployed." In doing so, the majority has
written the ability to pay requirement out of the statute for everyone
except welfare recipients.
¶ 20. There is no evidence in this case of the value of the
shelter, food and clothing provided in-kind by the Community to mother; the
evidence is only a tax calculation of the value of mother's labor as a
share of the Community's income. Thus, like the family court, the majority
is counting income to the Community as if it were income to mother.
¶ 21. More significant, "ability to pay" necessarily involves a
determination of net available income unless we are holding that no living
expense, including food or shelter, can take priority over paying child
support. The evidence is that $4,889 of income was attributed to mother in
2001. That amount is about 60% of the poverty level for a single person in
2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 10695 (February 16, 2001) (poverty level is $8,590 per
year). If we are saying that a person living at well below a subsistence
level has the ability to pay based on that income, there is no meaningful
ability to pay requirement. (FN3)
¶ 22. Nor is it an answer that mother is underemployed and the
court can impute income to her. The requirement is that there be "present
ability to pay." Hunt v. Hunt, 162 Vt. 423, 436, 648 A.2d 843, 853 (1994).
No such finding is possible here with respect to an obligor who has no
money and no assets that can be turned into money. Nor is there a finding
that a fifty-one year old high school graduate, with children, who has
worked as a cook and caretaker, can make substantially more money.
Finally, the court must find that the underemployment of the parent is not
in the best interest of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 653(5)(iii)(c), essentially
a value judgment of whether the children are better raised within the
religious community or without. There is, of course, no finding on this
point; such a finding would inevitably second-guess mother's religious
choice.
¶ 23. In essence, the majority has said that the determination of
whether there is a child support obligation, determined under the
definitions of income in § 653(5), governs whether there is an ability to
pay. Since some child support obligation is always imposed, no matter how
low the obligor's income, 15 V.S.A. § 656(b), it is tautological that there
is always some ability to pay. This analysis is directly contrary to the
holding in Lambert, which held that the obligor was unable to pay as a
matter of law because he had "an income of only $796 per month in
disability benefits." 2003 VT 75, ¶ 13. Thus, under Lambert, where the
obligor had an income almost twice that attributed to mother in this case,
the ability to pay was determined by the amount of the income. Nowhere
does the decision talk about the obligor's inability to earn more income.
As I said in the opening of this dissent, Lambert should govern here.
¶ 24. Although unsaid directly, the majority's affirmance of the
suspension of mother's license suspension rests on its conclusion that
mother should be required to leave the Community, reside on her own outside
the communal living situation of the Community and earn income
independently to pay the child support arrearage. We rejected exactly this
result in Hunt v. Hunt in relation to a family court holding that a
Community resident was in contempt of court for failing to earn money
outside the Community to pay child support. 162 Vt. at 437-38, 648 A.2d
at 853-54. We held:
In the contempt hearing, the State offered no evidence that
it was pursuing the least restrictive alternative. Essentially,
the State sought a harsh sanction in a case of imputed income. At
oral argument before this Court, counsel for OCS acknowledged that
his office exercises considerable discretion in pursuing
delinquent obligors. OCS generally follows up on cases with a
"reasonable possibility" of successful collection-generally, not
delinquent obligors without assets or employment. The State has
failed to establish that contempt and jail are the least
restrictive means to further the state's compelling interest in
enforcement the child support obligation. Contempt and
incarceration are not, per se, impermissible infringements on free
exercise, and may be imposed provided the State makes the
requisite showing mandated by the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act. In this case, however, the State has failed to make this
showing, and therefore the contempt order impermissibly burdens
defendant's free exercise rights as guaranteed by the federal
constitution.
Id., 648 A.2d at 854.
¶ 25. A substantial part of the magistrate's hearing in this case
was taken up by her asking the OCS representative what alternative to
license suspension OCS had pursued. OCS's response was that it had not,
and would not, pursue an alternative. Essentially, its position is that
license suspension is an alternative to contempt, and OCS can pursue it
irrespective of the presence of any other remedy. OCS argued this position
at the family court hearing:
[I]t's also not clear to me that the statute isn't . . . or can't
be imposed entirely for what amounts to punishment reasons.
I-again, this is not civil contempt. No one is going to be jailed
and although there is a right . . . an interest that a person has
in having or obtaining a driver's license it's not the same.
¶ 26. The OCS position, and the majority's acceptance of it, is
contrary to our analysis in Lambert where we held that we must "administer
§ 798's license suspension provisions consistent with our other civil
sanctions, recognizing ability to comply as a prerequisite to enforcement."
2003 VT 75, ¶ 12. Specifically, we held that license suspension cannot
be used as a punishment. Id. ¶ 13. The responsibility of OCS to show
the absence of an alternative enforcement method should be as strong for
license suspension as it is for contempt.
¶ 27. The majority's answer to the conflict between mother's
religious practices and the demands upon her to avoid license suspension is
that mother can serve the Community without a driver's license. That
finding is irrelevant to the basic conflict and reinforces the conclusion
that mother must abandon her religious convictions or lose the right to
drive an automobile. Under these circumstances, the license suspension is
purely a punishment for mother's adherence to her religion. As we held in
Lambert, § 798 does not authorize using license suspension to punish
behavior which the State finds undesirable. Id. ¶ 13. This holding is
particularly pertinent when that behavior is compelled by religious
beliefs.
¶ 28. I dissent from the majority's holding that grounds existed to
suspend mother's driver's license. I would reverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting
¶ 29. JOHNSON, J., dissenting. I join in Justice Dooley's dissent
insofar as it demonstrates that the magistrate's determination regarding
mother's ability to pay the child support arrearage was clearly erroneous.
Even if we were to accept mother's share of the community's tax obligations
as the amount of mother's income, it was insufficient to pay the
outstanding arrearage. The license suspension did nothing to further the
purpose of compelling payment. Indeed, OCS did not expect it to result in
payment. As we discussed in Lambert v. Beede, the enforcement scheme for
child support orders is civil, not criminal. 2003 VT 75, 175 Vt. 610, 830 A.2d 133 (mem). As such, civil sanctions aim to compel compliance rather
than to punish those in contempt. Therefore, the magistrate's order must
be supported by a finding of ability to pay before sanctions may be
imposed; otherwise, the sanction is purely punitive. Because the
magistrate's finding is not supported by the evidence, the lower court's
decision must be reversed under Lambert v. Beede without further analysis
of mother's ability to work outside of her community. I would reverse on
this ground.
BY THE COURT:
Dissenting:
___________________________________ _________________________________
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
____________________________________ _________________________________
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate
Justice
_________________________________
Brian L. Burgess, District Judge,
Specially Assigned
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
FN1. Although we need not decide which test applies to mother's claim, we
note that the stringent test has not applied to generally-applicable state
laws since 1997. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 533-36 (1997)
("RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of
powers and the federal balance."). See also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406-09 (1963) (requiring compelling government interest); Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (requiring, in addition, that the
challenged law employ the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling
interest); see also Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb-1(b) (purporting to forbid state and federal governments from
substantially burdening religious exercise via generally-applicable laws
except when such laws are the least restrictive means to further a
compelling government interest). To the extent that Hunt, decided as it
was during RFRA's brief tenure of application to state laws, depended on
the stringent RFRA test, it is inapposite here. 162 Vt. at 431-38, 648 A.2d at 850-54 (holding imposition of child support obligation permissible
under RFRA, but holding contempt sanction violative of same).
FN2. The evidence for this finding was mother's testimony. She filed a
letter from the treasurer of the church community in connection with her
financial disclosure. His letter stated that the pro rata share of the
church's income allocated to mother was as found by the magistrate. During
the 2002 hearing, the magistrate asked mother "for the year 2000 the
pro-rata share of income of the order allocated to you was $4,889 and that
a schedule K1 was filed with the IRS confirming that amount. Do you agree
with the contents of this letter that's what happened?" (Emphasis
supplied.) Mother answered "Yes."
FN3. The holding is even more extreme where the "income" is in-kind receipt
of food, clothing and shelter as if these necessities could be sold to
produce cash to pay child support.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
