Joe Golden v. Gwyn Worthington, 239 A.3d 259

Parents stipulated in a 2002 child-support order that father Joe Golden would pay $450/month until the child S.W. turned 18, or beyond if the child was enrolled in but had not completed high school.
S.W. turned 18 in June 2018; Golden stopped paying support. Mother Gwyn Worthington and the Office of Child Support moved to enforce the 2002 order in October 2018.
A magistrate entered an enforcement order after a December 7, 2018 hearing (mother appeared; father had notice but did not attend). The form order contained no factual findings or reasoning.
Golden filed a motion to reconsider alleging a homeschool/"home-study" program is not "high school." The magistrate denied the motion in May 2019, concluding the child-support statute encompasses home-study programs.
The family division affirmed the magistrate without a hearing in January 2020. Golden appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court but failed to provide a transcript of the December 7 hearing.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record was inadequate for appellate review (appellant bears burden to supply necessary transcripts), so the magistrate’s order was not disturbed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enrollment in a home-study program qualifies as "high school" to extend child support beyond age 18	Golden: home-study is not equivalent to high school; thus the 2002 order cannot be enforced past 18 on that basis	Worthington/OCS: the magistrate correctly found statutory and case-law support that home-study programs fall within secondary education for support-duration purposes	Not reached on merits—court declined to review because record/transcript was not provided; magistrate’s order stands
Whether Golden preserved his argument after failing to appear at the December 7 hearing and raising it in a motion to reconsider	Golden: his post-order motion sufficed to raise the issue on appeal	Worthington/OCS: failure to appear at hearing waived new arguments; motion to reconsider is not a venue for new issues	Family division found argument unpreserved; Supreme Court did not reach full preservation analysis because of inadequate record
Whether the appellate record was sufficient for review (transcript requirement)	Golden: did not provide transcript and asserted none was necessary	Worthington/OCS: transcript and evidentiary record existed and supported enforcement; trial file contained a letter but full transcript was needed	Held: appellant failed to supply necessary transcript; appellate review of factual issues requires a transcript, so the Court affirmed

Tetreault v. Coon, 708 A.2d 571 (1998) (start appellate review with magistrate’s decision and defer to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
Leitgeb v. Leitgeb, 152 A.3d 1177 (2016) (standard of review for magistrate factual findings and legal conclusions in family-division appeals)
In re J.S., 571 A.2d 658 (1989) (appellant bears burden to produce a record supporting appellate claims)
Whippie v. O’Connor, 996 A.2d 1154 (2010) (reiterating appellant’s duty to supply the appellate record)
Collins v. Collins, 173 A.3d 345 (2017) (appeal may be rejected where transcript is not ordered and record is incomplete)
State v. Dolley, 205 A.2d 572 (1964) (appealing party must provide record to show trial error; absence of transcript undermines review)
In re Joyce, 197 A.3d 378 (2018) (transcript necessary for appellate review of issues tied to underlying facts)
In re Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC, 939 A.2d 504 (2007) (pro se litigants afforded some flexibility but remain bound by procedural rules)