Legal Opinion
McSweeney v. McSweeney
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided November 12, 1992No. 91-601PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In this appeal, we must decide whether the Legislature intended that nonattorney employees of the office of child support (OCS) prosecute URESA cases on behalf of state’s attorneys. A magistrate and a reviewing trial court held that it did not. We agree and affirm.
We resolve this question by analyzing two statutory schemes: chapter 10 of Title 4, creating the family court, and chapter 7 of Title 15, facilitating *630reciprocal enforcement of child support (URESA).*
Under the family court scheme, magistrates conduct proceedings to establish, modify, and enforce child support and URESA. 4 V.S.A. §…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burlington Electric Department v. Vermont Department of TaxesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
- Hill v. ConwaySupreme Court of Vermont · 1983
- State v. PatnaudeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1981
- Scully v. SchubertSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. AshleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- OCS/Pappas v. O'Brien and Bernheim v. PappasSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- In re Serendipity MoralesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- Duhaime v. TreasurerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993