LeClair v. Reed ex rel. Reed
Vermont Supreme Court
939 A.2d 466 (2007)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
In January 2005, 37-year-old Robert LeClair (plaintiff) pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old girl whom he impregnated. LeClair subsequently filed a complaint to assert his parentage of the male child that resulted from the statutory rape and pursued parental rights, sought visitation with his son, and offered to pay child support. Although a family court acknowledged that under Vermont law, any person who alleged to be a child’s parent had standing to pursue a claim to establish parentage, the court nevertheless dismissed LeClair’s claim without a hearing on the motion of Cheryl Reed (defendant), the 15-year-old victim’s mother. Although, the family court could not find a case in which the perpetrator of statutory rape could not assert parentage of a child who resulted from the rape without a statute addressing that issue, the court could not endorse permitting the perpetrator to benefit from the crime of sexual assault, revictimize the victim, and be adjudicated the resulting child’s parent, at least in cases in which the child’s mother opposed it. However, LeClair’s pleadings indicated that the 15-year-old mother of the child was not particularly opposed to the father having paternal rights and that she had wanted to become pregnant. However, the court characterized the sexual encounter as forcible, contrary to LeClair’s pleadings. The family court granted Reed’s motion for dismissal. LeClair appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.