229 A.3d 77
Vt.2020Background
- Plaintiff (T.C.), age 17, alleged that defendant (L.D.), age 13, attempted anal sexual assault while she stayed overnight at a friend’s house.
- Plaintiff sought an emergency stalking-or-sexual-assault (SSA) protective order under 12 V.S.A. ch. 178; the court denied the emergency request and later dismissed the complaint on the ground that the SSA statute does not permit defendants who are minors.
- The trial court relied on a 2016 amendment to 12 V.S.A. § 5133(a) (which expressly allows minors 16+ to file on their own behalf) and applied the expressio unius canon to infer minors cannot be defendants.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and examined the statute’s plain language, the amendment’s purpose, common-law background, and Rule 17(b) protections for minors.
- The Court concluded the SSA statute is silent as to who may be defendants, that common law permits suits against minors subject to protective procedures (GAL, counsel, etc.), and that the amendment only eased filing for certain minor plaintiffs—it did not bar minors as defendants.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a merits hearing, holding courts can protect minor defendants through Rule 17(b) and other orders without reading a categorical bar into the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 12 V.S.A. ch. 178 permits SSA protective orders naming minors as defendants | SSA statute is silent on defendant age; minors can be defendants consistent with common law and Rule 17(b) | The 2016 amendment permitting minors 16+ to sue implies the Legislature intended minors not be defendants (expressio unius) | Reversed: statute contains no age limitation for defendants; minors may be sued subject to procedural protections |
| Whether the amendment allowing 16–17-year-olds to file on their own behalf implies exclusion of minors as defendants | Amendment only streamlined filing for certain minor plaintiffs; unrelated to who may be a defendant | Absence of express language allowing minors as defendants indicates Legislature excluded that possibility | Court rejected expressio unius inference; amendment addressed filing procedure, not defendant eligibility |
| Whether common law and Rule 17(b) permit claims against minors and supply necessary protections | Common law allowed suits against minors with special protections; Rule 17(b) (GAL/next friend) preserves safeguards | Trial court worried expedited SSA timelines make protections impractical | Held: common-law rule persists; courts can appoint GAL or make other protective orders under Rule 17(b) while observing hearing deadlines |
| Whether logistical/timeliness concerns or availability of criminal prosecution preclude civil SSA relief against minors | Procedural complications do not justify a statutory bar; criminal remedies don’t preclude civil relief | Trial court argued expedited process and delinquency proceedings make SSA actions against minors unworkable | Court held logistical issues must be managed by courts; availability of criminal prosecution is irrelevant to civil SSA eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Clymer v. Webster, 596 A.2d 905 (application of expressio unius canon)
- Langle v. Kurkul, 510 A.2d 1301 (statute changes common law only by clear, unambiguous language)
- Bielawski v. Burke, 147 A.2d 674 (claims against minors permitted with appointment of GAL/next friend)
- Duffy v. Penard, 41 Vt. 297 (at common law infants sue by guardian or next friend)
- Whitcomb v. Dancer, 443 A.2d 458 (GAL is an officer of the court representing a minor's interests)
- Shlansky v. City of Burlington, 13 A.3d 1075 (avoid statutory constructions producing absurd or irrational results)