Background
Cheryl Grey and Shane LaRock are the parents of a daughter born in March 2016. Under an October 2024 order, Grey’s contact with the child was limited to supervised visits.
Grey moved to modify parent-child contact in March 2025, seeking unsupervised visitation. After several hearings, the family division denied the request, finding no real, substantial, or unanticipated change in circumstances that would permit modification. The court made findings on the record and supplemented them in a December 2025 entry order. Grey, representing herself, appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. Because Grey did not order transcripts of the hearings, the Court could not review her challenge to the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings. Under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), an appellant waives any issue for which a transcript is necessary for informed appellate review.
Without the transcripts, the Court presumed that the trial court’s findings were supported by the evidence. It also characterized Grey’s argument as essentially disputing the trial court’s weighing of the evidence, a task the Supreme Court does not undertake on appeal. Grey therefore failed to establish error in the denial of her motion to modify parent-child contact.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must order the transcripts needed for informed appellate review.
- Failure to provide necessary transcripts waives challenges to the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that a family-law appellant cannot obtain review of fact-dependent claims without supplying the relevant hearing transcripts. When the record is incomplete, the Vermont Supreme Court will presume that the trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence.
The decision is a three-justice-panel entry order and, as the opinion notes, is not precedent before any tribunal.