Case Title: Tetreault v. Coon

Citation: 167 Vt. 396, 708 A.2d 571

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Tetreault v. Coon  (96-415); 167 Vt. 396; 708 A.2d 571

[Filed 23-Jan-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-415

Roxanne Tetreault                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Windham Family Court

Raymond Coon                                 June Term, 1997

Ellen Holmes Maloney, J.

       Geoffry F. Walsh, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Springfield, for
  plaintiff-appellant

       Daphne Moritz, Office of Child Support, Springfield, for
  defendant-appellee Office of Child Support

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Roxanne Tetreault appeals from a child support
  order against the father and noncustodial parent, Raymond Coon, arguing
  that it is inadequate to meet the needs of the four minor children of the
  parties.  The case raises important questions about the support obligations
  of the noncustodial parent when the custodial parent has children from a
  subsequent relationship that impair that parent's ability to earn income to
  support any of the children.  The family court held that the presence of
  subsequent children authorized it to deviate from the child-support
  guidelines and reduce the child-support obligation of defendant father. We
  disagree and reverse.

                                     I.

       The parties never married, but have four minor children from their
  relationship.  After separating in February of 1989, mother gained sole
  legal and physical responsibility for the four children.  An October 1991
  interim parentage order required father to pay $646 per month in child
  support and to provide health insurance coverage for the children.  During
  this period,

 

  mother had a relationship with another man, and twin boys were born of this
  relationship.  She separated from the father of the twins and received $43
  weekly in child support from him.  On September 10, 1992, the Office of
  Child Support filed a petition to issue a final child-support order against
  father, increasing the amount of support for mother consistent with the
  guidelines. In response to the motion, father requested that the magistrate
  deviate from the child-support guidelines pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 659(a)
  and set a support amount lower than the guidelines would require.  Father
  also asserted that mother was "voluntarily unemployed" and income should be
  imputed to her pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 653(5)(A)(iii).

       After several hearings on the motion, the family court magistrate
  issued a decision on February 1, 1994.  The magistrate found:

    Ms. Tetreault has a minimal work background.  She was in the Air
    Force where she received training in propeller repair, but never
    did any civilian work in that field.  Her only other work
    experience was assisting her mother in a restaurant doing
    waitressing and serving food.  This ended five or six years ago.
    She has had no other paid employment since then.  She currently
    does not work because she needs to care for the twins who are two
    years old.  She does not have any backup day care in place for her
    children if they should be sick.  All of her children with Mr.
    Coon, however, are now school age and are enrolled full time in
    public school.

  At the time of the hearing, mother received ANFC welfare benefits.

       Father worked full time as an equipment specialist for a major
  manufacturer.  At the time of the hearing, he earned $3,341 per month as a
  salaried employee.  He was attending college to earn a B.A. in Business
  Management and expected to graduate in April 1994.

       Despite her findings on mother's employment history, the magistrate
  decided to impute income to mother.  Noting that the Legislature
  specifically provided that an existing support order could not be reduced
  because of the obligor's additional dependents, 15 V.S.A. § 656a(c), she
  reasoned that equity required that a support obligation not be increased
  because of a custodial parent's additional dependents.  She held that
  allowing mother not to work in order to take care of the young twins would,
  in effect, be increasing father's support obligation because

 

  of her additional dependents.  Thus, the magistrate held that mother was
  voluntarily unemployed to the extent of any work she could perform
  consistent with caring for the children of the parties, and imputed such
  income as mother could earn under these circumstances.  See 15 V.S.A. §
  653(5)(A)(iii).  She decided that mother could work thirty hours per week
  while the children of the parties were in school and imputed income to her
  at the rate of $5 per hour.  The imputed income reduced the amount of child
  support the children would receive under the guidelines from $1,248.20 per
  month to $1,156.99 per month.(FN1)

       Mother appealed the magistrate's order to the family court.  In its
  November 22, 1994 order, the family court determined that the magistrate's
  findings did not support the conclusions with respect to the imputation of
  income:

     [T]here was no finding by the court that there were job openings
     available in plaintiff's community at the stated hourly wage range.
     There were no findings that plaintiff possessed the skill, experience
     or training levels needed for available job openings.  No findings
     were made related to the cost of day care or its availability for the
     non-school age children in plaintiff's household.  There was no
     indication plaintiff's day care costs would not exceed her income.
     The day care costs for the four older children, ages 8-13 years, for
     summer and other school vacation periods was not considered.  In
     the absence of any of the above findings, it was error for the
     magistrate to conclude that plaintiff could find employment.

  Thus, the court refused to impute income to mother under § 653(5)(A)(iii).

       Nevertheless, the court affirmed the magistrate's decision under a
  different rationale. The court held that application of the guidelines
  would be inequitable to father, reasoning that mother's desire to remain at
  home caring for her two youngest children reduced her ability to contribute
  financially and placed an unfair burden on father.  Relying upon 15 V.S.A.
  § 659(a), the court deviated from the guidelines and determined father's
  support obligation based on the actual expenses of the four children, which
  it found to be $1,100, a figure similar enough to the $1,156.99 per month
  ordered by the magistrate to leave the magistrate's decision undisturbed.

       Plaintiff argues on appeal that neither rationale is consistent with
  the child support statute and requests that we order that the child-support
  order be increased to that calculated under the guidelines, solely relying
  on defendant's income.  The Office of Child Support appears here as
  appellee and urges us to affirm on either the rationale adopted by the
  magistrate or that of the family court.(FN2)  We agree with plaintiff that
  neither rationale supports the order.

                                     II.

       We start with the decision of the magistrate because that decision
  best raises the underlying issues.  Review of the decision of the
  magistrate is normally based on the record made before the magistrate.  See
  15 V.S.A. § 465; V.R.F.P. 8(g)(4).  Findings of fact shall not be set aside
  unless clearly erroneous.  See V.R.C.P. 52(a)(2); V.R.F.P. 4 (Rules of
  Civil Procedure apply in divorce proceedings); V.R.F.P. 8(b) (Family
  Proceedings Rule 4 applies to magistrate proceedings).  The decision will
  be affirmed if the conclusions of law are supported by the findings.  See
  Abbiati v. Buttura & Sons, Inc., 161 Vt. 314, 318,