Case Title: Guiel v. Guiel

Citation: 165 Vt 584, 682 A.2d 957

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Guiel v. Guiel  (95-371); 165 Vt 584; 682 A.2d 957

[Opinion Filed 2-Jul-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-371

                              APRIL TERM, 1996


Jo-Anne M. Guiel                     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Chittenden Family Court
                                     }
James J. Guiel                       }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 984-12-93CnDmd


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Both parties appeal from the final judgment of the family court in
  this divorce case. Wife appeals the court's decision awarding parental
  rights and responsibilities for the couple's teenaged son, Scott, to
  husband.  Husband appeals from the court's property division and
  maintenance awards.  We affirm.(FN1)

       The parties married in 1972, and adopted a son, Scott, shortly
  thereafter.  During the marriage, wife worked as a homemaker and also
  worked part-time in the fields of special education and geriatric care. 
  She has worked sporadically at part-time jobs since the parties separated
  in 1993, but has medical problems that prevent full-time employment. 
  Husband works for an insurance company as a claims adjuster, earning
  approximately $65,000 a year. Following the separation, Scott lived for a
  time with his mother in the family home.  In September 1994, however, the
  family court issued a temporary placement order awarding legal and physical
  parental rights and responsibilities to husband.  This order was a response
  to an unpleasant incident between the parties at the hospital to which
  Scott was taken following an automobile accident.

       Wife argues that the family court's
  parental-rights-and-responsibilities order should be reversed because the
  court failed to consider her role as Scott's primary caretaker.  Although
  recognizing that the family court has "broad discretion in custody
  matters," Nickerson v. Nickerson, 158 Vt. 85, 88, 605 A.2d 1331, 1333
  (1992), wife maintains that the court abused its discretion by focusing on
  "isolated incidences" and disregarding wife's role as primary caretaker and
  her overall parenting skills.

       We note first that 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(6) requires the court to
  consider as one factor in parental-rights-and-responsibilities
  determination "the quality of the child's relationship with the primary
  care provider, if appropriate given the child's age and development."  As
  Scott was sixteen at the time of the final hearing, and had been living
  with his father for several months, the court may have reasonably concluded
  that his relationship with the primary care provider was not a particularly
  important factor in the custody decision.  Indeed, the court apparently
  gave great weight to Scott's own wishes, noting that Scott was
  "particularly mature given his age" and "should have significant influence
  over his own life."

 

       Moreover, the court found that returning to live with his mother would
  be "too unsettling" for Scott and that wife's significant medical problems,
  which have "affected her ability to cope with the pressures of daily life,"
  would make it difficult for her to deal with a teenager.  The court
  therefore did consider "the likely effect the change of custodian would
  have on the child and the family,"  Johnson v. Johnson, ___ Vt. ___, ___,