The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld a family division order that grants a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order against Willie McNulty, following allegations of domestic violence made by his wife, Sarah McNulty. The court's decision, issued on November 6, 2026, is significant as it addresses issues of domestic abuse and the legal protections available for victims. The ruling affects the McNulty family, particularly their three minor children, and reinforces the court's authority in domestic violence cases.

The case, identified as docket number 26-AP-187, originated from a complaint filed by Sarah McNulty in April 2026. She alleged that her husband had engaged in a pattern of abusive behavior, including sexual assault, threats of violence, and controlling actions that endangered her and their children. The court granted a temporary order of protection while the case was being heard.

In the family division, the court conducted a contested hearing where both parties presented their testimonies. Sarah McNulty detailed instances of abuse, including an occasion when her husband physically restrained her from calling for help. She expressed fear for her safety and that of their children, citing escalating threats and controlling behavior from her husband. The court also heard testimony from Willie McNulty, who denied the allegations but admitted to holding his wife's wrists during a confrontation.

The dispute escalated when Willie McNulty sought to introduce testimony from their oldest child, K.M., and his mother, arguing that their accounts would support his version of events. However, the court determined that their testimonies were not necessary for resolving the RFA request. The court found that the evidence presented by Sarah McNulty was sufficient to justify the issuance of the RFA order.

The Vermont Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Paul L. Reiber and Associate Justices Nancy J. Waples and Christina E. Nolan, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court emphasized the discretion of family courts in assessing witness credibility and evidence in domestic abuse cases. The ruling stated, "The court’s decision to exclude testimony of K.M. and husband’s mother was well within its discretion," reinforcing the court's authority to control the proceedings.

The court also addressed Willie's argument that Sarah did not meet the burden of proof required for an RFA order. The justices noted that the trial court's findings demonstrated that Sarah had indeed met her burden of proof regarding the allegations of abuse. The court stated, "The court found that husband grabbed wife’s wrists and prevented her from calling for help," which was supported by the evidence presented during the hearing.

This ruling is significant as it affirms the protections available to victims of domestic violence in Vermont. It highlights the importance of the family court's role in assessing claims of abuse and ensuring the safety of individuals and children involved in such cases. The decision sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the admissibility of testimony and the evaluation of evidence in domestic violence situations.

Moving forward, this ruling reinforces the legal framework for relief-from-abuse orders in Vermont and may impact how future cases are adjudicated. Victims of domestic violence can seek similar protections, knowing that the courts will take their claims seriously. The ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding the well-being of children in cases involving domestic abuse.

As for what’s next, it is unclear if Willie McNulty plans to appeal the decision further. The court filing does not provide information on any related cases or pending appeals. However, the ruling stands as a critical affirmation of the protections available to victims of domestic violence in Vermont.