(a) Evidence of conduct of a parent not related to the factors in section 665 of this title shall only be admissible for the purposes of determining parental rights and responsibilities
if it is shown that the conduct affects the parent’s relationship with the child.
(b) Reports prepared by a person qualified as an expert under the Vermont Rules of Evidence,
evaluating the best interests of the child, shall be admissible for the purposes of
determining parental rights and responsibilities provided that the expert is available
for cross-examination. (Added 1985, No. 181 (Adj. Sess.), § 5.)
Chickanosky v. Chickanosky, 2011 VT 110 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 3ד*443 ¶ 17. By statute, reports of an expert “evaluating the best interests of the child” are admissible in determining parental rights and responsibilities if the expert is available for cross-examination.”
Harris v. Harris, 546 A.2d 208 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 2ד” However, 15 V.S.A. § 667(a) provides that “[e]vidence of conduct of a parent not related to the factors in section 665 of this title shall only be admissible for the purposes of determining parental rights and responsibilities if it is shown that the conduct affects the…”
Velardo v. Ovitt, 2007 VT 69 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 2ד" 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Dr. Tyler is an expert and she was available for cross-examination.”
Politi v. Tyler, 751 A.2d 788 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 2ד" The evaluation was intended to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Defendant, a licensed psychologist, contracted with plaintiff and Mr.”
Aron C. Vance v. Miranda Locke, 2022 VT 23 (Vt. 2022). “” 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Mother does not contest the 8 evaluator’s qualifications.”
Thompson v. Pafundi, 2010 VT 80 (Vt. 2010). “For this contention, she relies on 15 V.S.A. § 667(a), which states: “Evidence of conduct of a parent not related to the factors in section 665.”
Velardo v. Ovitt, 2007 VT 69 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 2ד” 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Dr. Tyler is an expert and she was available for cross-examination.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 667(a) — 2 cases
Harris v. Harris, 546 A.2d 208 (Vt. 1988). “” However, 15 V.S.A. § 667(a) provides that “[e]vidence of conduct of a parent not related to the factors in section 665 of this title shall only be admissible for the purposes of determining parental rights and responsibilities if it is shown that the conduct affects the…”
Thompson v. Pafundi, 2010 VT 80 (Vt. 2010). “For this contention, she relies on 15 V.S.A. § 667(a), which states: “Evidence of conduct of a parent not related to the factors in section 665.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 667(b) — 5 cases
Chickanosky v. Chickanosky, 2011 VT 110 (Vt. 2011). “*443 ¶ 17. By statute, reports of an expert “evaluating the best interests of the child” are admissible in determining parental rights and responsibilities if the expert is available for cross-examination.”
Velardo v. Ovitt, 2007 VT 69 (Vt. 2007). “" 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Dr. Tyler is an expert and she was available for cross-examination.”
Politi v. Tyler, 751 A.2d 788 (Vt. 2000). “" The evaluation was intended to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Defendant, a licensed psychologist, contracted with plaintiff and Mr.”
Aron C. Vance v. Miranda Locke, 2022 VT 23 (Vt. 2022). “” 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Mother does not contest the 8 evaluator’s qualifications.”
Velardo v. Ovitt, 2007 VT 69 (Vt. 2007). “” 15 V.S.A. § 667(b). Dr. Tyler is an expert and she was available for cross-examination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.