Dasler v. Washburn

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Windsor Unit Case No. 24-CV-02983
12 The Green
Woodstock VT 05091
802-457-2121
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Motion to Join MINOR CHILD TO CASE (Motion: 1)
Filer: Timothy P. Dasler
Filed Date: August 01, 2024

The motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Dasler seeks permission to join a minor child as a party to the present case. From
his filings, it appears that he wishes to join his minor child, T.D., as a Plaintiff and to bring the
present matter on both his and his child’s behalf.

Plaintiff’s Motion is filed pursuant to the Windsor County Superior Court’s December 4,
2023 Order Restricting Abusive Litigation, which provides that “Until further order of the court,
Timothy Dasler shall be restricted from filing, initiating, advancing, or continuing litigation against
Jennifer Knapp UNLESS 1) a duly licensed attorney who has entered an appearance on Mr.
Dasler’s behalf (not a limited appearance) files a motion or other action, OR 2) Mr. Dasler files a
petition to obtain pre-filing approval from the court requesting permission to file a motion or other
action involving Ms. Knapp AND the court grants the petition to file.” Knapp v. Dasler, Dckt. No.
74-6-17 Oedm (Dec. 4, 2023) (Warren, J.) (emphasis in the original).

Before the Court can consider whether Plaintiff Dasler’s proposed motion is permitted
under the December 4, 2023 Order Restricting Abusive Litigation, there is a threshold issue of
standing. Baird v. City of Burlington, 2016 VT 6, ¶ 15 (generally parties may not bring actions on
behalf of another unless they can establish an exception to this rule). In reviewing Docket No. 74-6-
17 Oedm, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s ex-spouse currently holds the Parental Rights and Legal
Responsibilities for T.D. Dasler v Dasler, Dckt. No. 2020-146, at 1 (Mar. 5, 2021) (unpub. mem.). As
the holder of legal responsibilities, it is mother’s sole responsibility to advance litigation on behalf of

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2
24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn
the minor. 15 V.S.A. § 664(1)(A); V.R.C.P. 17(b). Thus, the present motion cannot succeed as

Plaintiff lacks the authority to bring a case on behalf 'T.D. under Rule 17(b). That right remains with
Ms. Knapp.

Even if Plaintiff was allowed to bring such an action, his filing raises a second significant
issue. Plaintiff may not in his capacity as a parent/guardian bring an action in a pro se capacity on

behalf of another. Plaintiff, if he had standing, would, at a minimum, have to also retain counsel to

represent T.D. Sxelgrove v. LeBlanc, 2023 VT 114,15. As the Court in Svelgrove holds, "We conclude
that a nonattorney guardian may not represent a ward in court proceedings without an attorney

because it would violate the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law and possibly lead to

abuse." Id. The same holds true here where Plaintiff seeks to act as a self-represented litigant on his

own behalf and on behalf of his minor child. Thus, in addition to the standing limitation, Plaintiffs
motion and complaint lacks the necessary attorney representation needed to prosecute a claim on
behalf of another.

Based on these two limitations, Plaintiff's motion must be denied as a matter of law, and the

Court does not reach the question of whether Plaintiffs request to file on behalf of his minor child
violates the December 4, 2023 Order Restrictive Abusive Litigation. The Motion to add T.D. to the

present filing is Denied.

Additionally, PlaintifPs motion for a stay is Denied. Service deadlines on the complaint
remain in place and will have to be satisfied consistent with V.R.C.P. 3 and 4.

So Ordered.

Electronically signed on 9/10/2024 8:41 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

Daniel Richardson
Superior Court Judge

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 09/11/24
Windsor Unit

Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 2
24-CV-02983 Timothy Dasler v. Dalene Washburn