Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a family court decision transferring sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities from the mother to the father after the mother proposed relocating with the children out of state. The court held that the relocation constituted a substantial change in circumstances under 15 V.S.A. § 668 and that the family court properly applied the best-interests factors in 15 V.S.A. § 665. The court concluded that the transfer was supported by findings concerning the children's relationships, stability, and the mother's interference with the father's parent-child contact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court properly found that mother's proposed relocation constituted a substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances significantly impairing father's exercise of custodial responsibilities.
- Whether the family court properly applied the statutory best-interests factors in awarding sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities to father despite mother's status as the children's primary care provider.
- Whether unsupported or allegedly erroneous findings concerning repeated relocations and the parties' evidence required reversal.
- Whether the family court improperly substituted its judgment for mother's regarding her decision to relocate in support of her husband's military career.
- Whether admission of parol evidence concerning father's motive in transferring his interest in the marital home was preserved for appellate review.
Holdings
- Under Hawkes v. Spence, relocation constitutes a substantial change of circumstances justifying reexamination of parental rights and responsibilities only when it significantly impairs either parent's ability to exercise responsibilities that parent has been exercising or attempting to exercise under the parenting plan. The family court properly found that the proposed relocation would significantly impair father's custodial relationship with the children.
- The family court did not abuse its discretion in applying 15 V.S.A. § 665 and determining that sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities with father best served the children's interests.
- An erroneous or unsupported finding does not require reversal unless the appellant demonstrates prejudice. The family court's unsupported characterization that repeated relocations were unlikely to benefit the children was not prejudicial because the custody decision was driven by the broader, evidence-supported concerns about disruption of the children's relationships and mother's reliability in honoring visitation.
- The challenge to admission of parol evidence was not preserved because mother failed to object on that ground in the family court.
Key quotations
“relocation is a substantial change of circumstances justifying a reexamination of parental rights and responsibilities only when the relocation significantly impairs either parent's ability to exercise responsibilities the parent has been exercising or attempting to exercise under the parenting plan.” (¶ 5)
“Because the court's findings, conclusions and exercise of discretion thereon were all tenable, at the least, "we therefore think that no abuse of discretion appears."” (¶ 25)
Factual background
Christopher Rogers and Carla Parrish divorced in 2003, with mother receiving sole physical rights and responsibilities and father receiving extensive parent-child contact. Father's actual caregiving was substantial, but contact decreased after mother moved from Morrisville to Vergennes. Mother then planned to remarry and relocate with the children and her new military-spouse husband to another state, potentially requiring later relocations. The family court found that the relocation would substantially impair father's relationship with the children, that mother had previously interfered with visitation and had not been candid about the relocation plans, and that custody with father would better preserve the children's relationships with both parents and their Vermont home and community.
Procedural history
The parties divorced in 2003 pursuant to a judgment incorporating a stipulation that granted mother sole physical rights and responsibilities, shared legal rights and responsibilities, and substantial parent-child contact to father. After mother moved within Vermont and announced plans to remarry and relocate with the children out of state, both parties moved to modify custody and parent-child contact. Following an evidentiary hearing, the family court awarded sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities to father, granted mother substantial visitation, and denied reconsideration and a stay. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.