WHAT HAPPENED TO M.G.
- Shan L/E Wayshower
- Oct 8
- 6 min read
Updated: Oct 29
A 12-Year-Old Named in an Eviction Case
THE STORY
M.G. was 12 years old
On October 30, 2024, a sheriff knocked on the door of M.G.'s home in Montpelier, Vermont.
M.G. was on the stairs. "Stay there," her Mom said, seeing the sheriff's car outside.
Greeting the sheriff and trying to protect her child, she shut the door behind her. The sheriff handed her legal papers: a summons and complaint naming her as a defendant in an eviction case.
And then the sheriff handed her another summons and complaint—this one naming M.G.
M.G. heard the sheriff speak her name and didn't understand what she'd done wrong.
She hadn't done anything wrong.
M.G. NEVER:
❌ Signed a lease
❌ Paid rent
❌ Had any contractual relationship with the landlord
❌ Owed any money
❌ Had any legal obligation
M.G. was just a child living with her mother in their home.
BUT WAS NAMED ANYWAY
Why Could This Happen?
In Vermont, there is no law specifically prohibiting the naming of children in civil cases without verification of their legal involvement.
The result:
No automatic verification required before naming a minor
No built-in protection for children
Parents face impossible barriers when trying to protect their children in court
WHAT THE JUDGE SAID
Judge Timothy Tomasi reviewed M.G.'s involvement in the case.
In his order dated April 17, 2025, Judge Tomasi found:
"...there was no need for M.G. to be named a formal party in this case."
Translation: Even the judge acknowledged M.G. should not have been in this case.
But the damage was done.
M.G. now has a permanent public civil court record that will appear in background checks throughout her life—affecting housing applications, employment opportunities, and more.
Why?
Because once a child is named in a civil case, there's no easy mechanism to erase the record. The system has no simple way to undo it.
THE TRIAL
October 27-28, 2025 | Washington County Superior Court, Montpelier, Vermont
Vermont is unique: Most states don't allow jury trials in eviction cases. But Vermont does.
That meant 12 regular Vermonters heard the case.
What Happened at Trial
M.G.'s mother, Shannon Gilmour, raised several legal claims, including:
Questions about whether naming M.G. was proper
Concerns about the timing of the eviction following requests for fire safety equipment
Arguments about the impact on her family
Before trial, the court ruled:
Some of Shannon's claims were dismissed on procedural grounds
Certain evidence was excluded from the jury's consideration
The case proceeded on narrower issues than originally filed
The jury's verdict:
The jury ruled in favor of the landlord
Shannon's remaining claims were not successful
Shannon believes:
Critical evidence was excluded from the jury
The procedural rulings prevented her from fully presenting her case
The constitutional questions about children in civil court remain unresolved
THE "PRO SE PARENT CATCH-22"
Shannon represented herself (pro se) because she could not afford an attorney.
When she tried to defend M.G., she discovered impossible barriers:
❌ Parents cannot represent their children in Vermont court (prohibited by law)
❌ Children must have separate legal representation (M.G. would need her own attorney)
❌ Hiring an attorney costs thousands of dollars (most families cannot afford this)
❌ Waiting until age 18 isn't an option (the damage is already done)
The result:
M.G. was essentially unrepresented when decisions were made about her involvement
Shannon had to file separate paperwork "on behalf of" M.G. (which was later dismissed as improper)
The family paid double filing fees trying to protect M.G.'s interests
No clear path existed to protect a child's rights in this situation
This catch-22 disproportionately affects low-income families who cannot afford attorneys.
WHY THIS CASE MATTERS
Not Just About One Family
This case highlights systemic problems that affect families across Vermont and America:
1. Children Can Be Named Without Verification
No requirement to verify a child's legal involvement before naming them
No automatic protection for minors in civil proceedings
Permanent public records created that follow children for life
2. Parents Face Impossible Barriers
Cannot represent their children (prohibited)
Cannot afford separate attorneys (economic barrier)
Cannot protect their children from being named (no prevention mechanism)
3. The System Has No Easy Fix
Once named, records are permanent
Even when courts acknowledge children shouldn't be involved
No clear process to protect children or remove improper records
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Vermont Supreme Court Appeal
Shannon plans to appeal certain aspects of the case to the Vermont Supreme Court, including:
The key legal question:
What protections exist for children named in civil proceedings?
What barriers do pro se parents face when trying to protect their children?
What remedies should exist when children are improperly involved in adult legal disputes?
Why this matters:
The Vermont Supreme Court could establish statewide precedent
Constitutional questions about children's rights in civil court remain unanswered
The procedural barriers faced by families need judicial review
M.G.'s Law: Legislative Solution for 2026
Regardless of the appeal outcome, Vermont needs clearer protections for children.
M.G.'s Law proposes:
✅ Verification requirement before naming children in civil cases✅ Automatic legal representation when children must be involved✅ Mechanism to remove improper records involving children✅ Clear standards for when children can be named✅ Protection for all families, not just those who can afford attorneys
M.G.'S COURAGE
"Let them protest!"
M.G. is now 13 years old.
When asked about going public with this story, M.G. said:
"Let them protest!"
M.G. understands that speaking out could help other children avoid what happened to her.
That takes courage.
M.G.'s trauma is real:
Anxiety about legal proceedings
Permanent court record at age 12
Stress on family relationships
Questions about what she did wrong (nothing)
But M.G. is also:
Brave enough to allow her story to be told
Strong enough to stand up for other children
The inspiration for a movement to protect all children
THE BIGGER PICTURE
Not Just Vermont
This is a national problem:
Children across America are being:
Named in eviction cases as babies and toddlers
Served with legal papers before they can read
Given permanent court records before they understand what courts are
Left without protection because their families cannot afford attorneys
Most people have no idea this is happening.
That's why M.G.'s story matters.
THE QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKING
Should children be named in adult landlord-tenant disputes without verification?
Should families face impossible barriers when trying to protect their children in civil court?
Should a 12-year-old have a permanent public court record because of an adult housing dispute?
Should only wealthy families be able to protect their children in civil proceedings?
We believe the answer is NO.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
1. Sign the Petition
Add your voice to Vermonters calling for M.G.'s Law.MGsLawVT.org/petition
2. Share M.G.'s Story
Help people understand what happened and why protections are needed.Most Vermonters have no idea children can be named in civil cases like this.
3. Contact Your Legislators
Tell them you support M.G.'s Law.Let them know you're watching and expect action in the 2026 session.
4. Spread Awareness
Talk to friends and family
Share on social media
Write letters to newspapers
Attend legislative hearings
THE BOTTOM LINE
What happened to M.G. shouldn't happen to any child.
Whether you agree with the jury's verdict or not, everyone can agree:
Children need protection in civil proceedings
Families shouldn't face impossible barriers
The system should have clear safeguards
Economic status shouldn't determine a child's safety
Vermont can lead the way.
M.G.'s Law is how we start.
FOLLOW THE CASE
Vermont Supreme Court Appeal: Expected filing 2025-2026Legislative Session: 2026 (M.G.'s Law introduction)Case Number: 24-CV-04273
For Updates:
Website: MGsLawVT.org
FOR M.G. AND ALL CHILDREN
M.G. was 12 when she was named as a defendant.She's 13 now.The trauma will remain.
Unless we change the system.Unless we protect the next child.Unless we say: Not in Vermont. Not anymore.
M.G.'s Law: Protecting ALL Vermont Children in Civil Proceedings
Press Inquiries
[Contact information]
Legal Information
This website describes one family's experience and advocates for legislative change. Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. For questions about specific legal situations, consult an attorney.
Last Updated: October 29, 2025
When landlords weaponize children for profit, they put something priceless on scales designed for money. The scales break. Because a child cannot be weighed. Cannot be measured. Cannot be valued in dollars.