Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a mother's motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities because the trial court reasonably determined that transferring custody was not in the child's best interests. The court reversed the denial of the mother's request for attorney's fees, holding that justice and equity supported an award based on the father's repeated violations of court orders and alienating conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding attorney's fees and parent-child contact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's findings supported its determination that retaining custody with father was in the child's best interests despite father's and stepmother's alienating conduct.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying mother attorney's fees and costs associated with the modification proceeding.
- Whether the trial court should promptly hold a hearing concerning resumption of mother's parent-child contact after visitation was suspended.
Holdings
- The trial court acted within its discretion in denying mother's motion to transfer custody because its best-interests determination was factually based and legally supported, including its consideration of the child's stability, adjustment to his current home and school, and relationship with father.
- The trial court abused its discretion by denying mother attorney's fees and costs. Justice and equity required an award because father's repeated and egregious violations of court orders prompted the modification proceeding, father had substantially greater financial resources, and mother should not bear the cost of enforcing her constitutional right to parent her child.
- The trial court was directed, if it had not already done so, to hold a hearing concerning resumption of mother's parent-child contact within fourteen days of the decision and to consider awarding additional contact to compensate for time lost because of father's actions.
Key quotations
“The trial court has broad discretion in determining what course of action is in a child's best interests,” (186)
“It is for the trial court, not this Court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and weigh the persuasiveness of the evidence.” (186)
“A parent who willfully alienates a child from the other parent may not be awarded custody based on that alienation” (187)
“Mother should not have to bear the cost of enforcing her constitutional right to parent L.C. under these circumstances.” (189)
Factual background
Since 2012, father and stepmother repeatedly made unfounded abuse allegations, interfered with therapy and reunification efforts, and deprived mother of contact with her child. The trial court found that father and stepmother had violated prior orders, including by disseminating the child's confidential therapeutic records and attempting to influence the child's therapist. Although the court found father and stepmother not credible in many respects and recognized their alienating conduct, it retained custody with father because the child was happy, healthy, and deeply connected to his existing home, school, and community. Mother sought attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing the modification proceeding, which the trial court denied.
Procedural history
The trial court found a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances based on father's and stepmother's violations of prior orders, but denied mother's request to transfer custody because doing so was not in the child's best interests. It also denied mother's request for attorney's fees and costs. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the custody ruling, reversed the fee ruling, remanded for additional proceedings concerning fees and costs, and directed the trial court to hold a hearing concerning resumption of parent-child contact within fourteen days.
Remand instructions
The denial of mother's request for attorney's fees and costs was reversed and remanded for additional proceedings and an award consistent with the court's opinion. If not already held, the trial court was directed to hold a hearing concerning resumption of mother's parent-child contact within fourteen days of the decision and to consider awarding additional contact for time lost because of father's actions. The denial of mother's motion to modify custody was affirmed.