clear and convincing standard in Vermont

2020She also points to our holding in State v. Lontine for the proposition that to establish a potential threat to others under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, the State must meet a clear-and-convincing standard of proof, and argues that the clear-and-convincing standard cannot be met in this case. 2016 VT 26, ¶¶ 45-46 , 201 Vt. 637 , 142 A.3d 1058 (mem.). ¶ 23.

2020She also points to our holding in State v. Lontine for the proposition that to establish a potential threat to others under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, the State must meet a clear-and-convincing standard of proof, and argues that the clear-and-convincing standard cannot be met in this case. 2016 VT 26, ¶¶ 45-46 , 201 Vt. 637 , 142 A.3d 1058 (mem.). ¶ 23.

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (conc

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (co

2024Lanfear v. Ruggerio, 2020 VT 84, ¶ 18 , 213 Vt. 322 (quotations omitted); see State v. Lontine, 2016 VT 26, ¶¶ 46-47 , 201 Vt. 637 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Downing, 2020 VT 101, ¶ 22 , 213 Vt. 468 .

2023Lanfear v. Ruggerio, 2020 VT 84, ¶ 18 , 213 Vt. 322 ; see State v. Lontine, 2016 VT 26, ¶¶ 46-47 , 201 Vt. 637 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Downing, 2020 VT 101, ¶ 22 , 213 Vt. 468 .

1986Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982); In re A. D., 143 Vt. 432, 435 , 467 A.2d 121, 123 (1983).

1986Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1391-92 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); In re A.D., 143 Vt. 432, 435 , 467 A.2d 121, 123 (1983).

2023The clear and convincing standard “does not require that evidence in support of a fact be uncontradicted, but does require that the fact’s existence be highly probable.” In re Kane, 2017 VT 48 , 204 Vt. 635 , 637, 169 A.3d 180, 183 (mem.) (quotation omitted).

2023The clear and convincing standard “does not require that evidence in support of a fact be uncontradicted, but does require that the fact’s existence be highly probable.” In re Kane, 2017 VT 48 , 204 Vt. 635 , 637, 169 A.3d 180, 183 (mem.) (quotation omitted).

2024Id.; see, e.g., Baldwin v. State, 126 Vt. 70, 77 , 223 A.2d 556, 561 (1966) (concluding admission of photographs, even if in error, was harmless because they were cumulative of other evidence). 10 ¶ 20.

2024Id.; see, e.g., Baldwin v. State, 126 Vt. 70, 77 , 223 A.2d 556, 561 (1966) (concluding admission of photographs, even if in error, was harmless because they were cumulative of other evidence). 10 ¶ 20.

2019See Application of Last Will & Testament of Manville, 447 N.Y.S.2d 195, 199 (N.Y.

2015While the trial court must certainly apply a clear-and-convincing standard in deciding these cases, this Court has not required “an explicit statement by the trial courts as to the standard employed in parental termination cases.” In re C.L., 151 Vt. 480, 488 (1989).

2015To determine if the proper standard was met, we examine “the language used by the trial court.” Id.

2014See Tailor v. Becker, 708 A.2d 626, 628-29 (Del. 1998) (rejecting constitutional challenge to statute permitting custody to be given to custodial stepparent over noncustodial parent after custodial natural parent’s death, based on conclusion that statute did not irrevocably terminate natural parent’s rights but rather permitted parent-child contact and requests for modification of custody order); cf. Stanley D., 467 A.2d at 251 (stating that order awarding joint custody to stepparent and natural parent was not equivalent to termination of parental rights and therefore did not require proof of

2014See Tailor v. Becker, 708 A.2d 626, 628-29 (Del. 1998) (rejecting constitutional challenge to statute permitting custody to be given to custodial stepparent over noncustodial parent after custodial natural parent’s death, based on conclusion that statute did not irrevocably terminate natural parent’s rights but rather permitted parent-child contact and requests for modification of custody order); cf. Stanley D., 467 A.2d at 251 (stating that order awarding joint custody to stepparent and natural parent was not equivalent to termination of parental rights and therefore did not require proof of

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (conc

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (co

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (conc

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (co

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (conc

2011As discussed at length in Mullin , however, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and others strongly suggest that preservation of a noncustodial parent’s visitation rights in any context is a constitutionally protected liberty interest requiring clear and convincing evidence before it may be terminated in its entirety. 162 Vt. at 265-67 , 647 A.2d at 723-24 ; see, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 747-48 (1982) (holding that parent’s right to raise child may be terminated only upon clear and convincing proof that the child was neglected); Armstrong v. Manzo , 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965) (co

1986See Bardill Land & Lumber, Inc. v. Davis, 135 Vt. 81 , 370 A.2d 212 (1977). *206 The defendants do not contest any of the court’s stated findings, and therefore they are binding.

1986See Bardill Land & Lumber, Inc. v. Davis, 135 Vt. 81 , 370 A.2d 212 (1977). *206 The defendants do not contest any of the court’s stated findings, and therefore they are binding.