Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : REPORTS OF ABUSE OF VULNERABLE ADULTS

(Cite as: 33 V.S.A. § 6902)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 6× “” 33 V.S.A. § 6902 (1)(E). 4 I cannot agree with such a conclusion, and I therefore dissent.”
In Re Ec, 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 6× “§ 6902(1)(E) in its determination that petitioner's conduct did not meet the definition of abuse and that the Board did not set forth sufficient findings to form the basis for a decision. We affirm. ¶ 2. Petitioner worked as an individual assistant for special-needs students,…”
In re Harwood, 2013 VT 89 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 5× “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
In re Tinker, 686 A.2d 946 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 4× “The Department challenges the Board’s holding that the charge of abuse of a disabled adult, see 33 V.S.A. § 6902(1), could not be substantiated unless Tinker knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s disability.”
In re Harwood, 195 Vt. 7 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 5× “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
Farr v. Searles, 2006 VT 110 (Vt. 2006). ““Vulnerable adult” is defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14) and numerous subsections.”
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2011). · cites it 3× “was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14). It explained that the term “exploitation” included “[w]illfully using, withholding, transferring or disposing of funds or property of a vulnerable adult without or in excess of legal authority for the wrongful profit…”
Est. of Donald Crofut v. Sean Hammond (Vt. 2024). “* The undisputed facts also establish that Crofut was elderly, hospitalized for periods of time, and increasingly unable to care for himself, and in turn establish, as a matter of law, that Crofut was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14)(D). * Hammond also…”
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2015). “The substantiation was affirmed on appeals to the Board and this Court. See In re Waldman, No. 2010-266, 2011 WL 4977673 (Vt.”
ProSelect Ins. Co. v. Levy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “§ 1354 (“unprofessional conduct”); 33 V.S.A. § 6902(1)(D) (defining as “abuse” “[a]ny sexual activity with a vulnerable adult by a caregiver who volunteers for or is paid by a caregiving facility or program”); 33 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(1) — 3 cases
In re Tinker, 686 A.2d 946 (Vt. 1996). “The Department challenges the Board’s holding that the charge of abuse of a disabled adult, see 33 V.S.A. § 6902(1), could not be substantiated unless Tinker knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s disability.”
In re Harwood, 195 Vt. 7 (Vt. 2013). “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
In re Harwood, 2013 VT 89 (Vt. 2013). “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(1)(A) — 3 cases
In re Harwood, 2013 VT 89 (Vt. 2013). “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
In re Tinker, 686 A.2d 946 (Vt. 1996). “The Department challenges the Board’s holding that the charge of abuse of a disabled adult, see 33 V.S.A. § 6902(1), could not be substantiated unless Tinker knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s disability.”
In re Harwood, 195 Vt. 7 (Vt. 2013). “Petitioner filed a motion to amend the court’s order on July 6, 2011, requesting the court to: (1) clarify whether her conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse in 33 V.S.A. § 6902; (2) strike the court’s order requiring her to provide the court and other interested…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(1)(D) — 1 case
ProSelect Ins. Co. v. Levy (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “§ 1354 (“unprofessional conduct”); 33 V.S.A. § 6902(1)(D) (defining as “abuse” “[a]ny sexual activity with a vulnerable adult by a caregiver who volunteers for or is paid by a caregiving facility or program”); 33 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(1)(E) — 2 cases
In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). “” 33 V.S.A. § 6902 (1)(E). 4 I cannot agree with such a conclusion, and I therefore dissent.”
In Re Ec, 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). “§ 6902(1)(E) in its determination that petitioner's conduct did not meet the definition of abuse and that the Board did not set forth sufficient findings to form the basis for a decision. We affirm. ¶ 2. Petitioner worked as an individual assistant for special-needs students,…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(14) — 4 cases
In re E.C., 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). “” 33 V.S.A. § 6902 (1)(E). 4 I cannot agree with such a conclusion, and I therefore dissent.”
In Re Ec, 2010 VT 50 (Vt. 2010). “§ 6902(1)(E) in its determination that petitioner's conduct did not meet the definition of abuse and that the Board did not set forth sufficient findings to form the basis for a decision. We affirm. ¶ 2. Petitioner worked as an individual assistant for special-needs students,…”
Farr v. Searles, 2006 VT 110 (Vt. 2006). ““Vulnerable adult” is defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14) and numerous subsections.”
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2011). “was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14). It explained that the term “exploitation” included “[w]illfully using, withholding, transferring or disposing of funds or property of a vulnerable adult without or in excess of legal authority for the wrongful profit…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(14)(A) — 1 case
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2011). “was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14). It explained that the term “exploitation” included “[w]illfully using, withholding, transferring or disposing of funds or property of a vulnerable adult without or in excess of legal authority for the wrongful profit…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(14)(D) — 1 case
Est. of Donald Crofut v. Sean Hammond (Vt. 2024). “* The undisputed facts also establish that Crofut was elderly, hospitalized for periods of time, and increasingly unable to care for himself, and in turn establish, as a matter of law, that Crofut was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14)(D). * Hammond also…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 6902(6) — 2 cases
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2015). “The substantiation was affirmed on appeals to the Board and this Court. See In re Waldman, No. 2010-266, 2011 WL 4977673 (Vt.”
In re Marvin Waldman (Vt. 2011). “was a “vulnerable adult” as defined in 33 V.S.A. § 6902(14). It explained that the term “exploitation” included “[w]illfully using, withholding, transferring or disposing of funds or property of a vulnerable adult without or in excess of legal authority for the wrongful profit…”
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.