Case Title: Rocissono v. Spykes

Citation: 170 Vt. 309, 749 A.2d 592

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rocissono v. Spykes (99-114); 170 Vt. 309; 749 A.2d 592

[Filed 28-Jan-2000]

       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. 99-114

Tressa Rocissono	                              Supreme Court

                                                      On Appeal from
     v.		                                      Lamoille Family Court

Michael Spykes	                                      January Term, 2000

Ben W. Joseph, J.

Harold B. Stevens and Heather S. Bowman of Stevens Law Office, Stowe,
  for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sharon Green of Williams and Green, P.C., Morrisville, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Tressa Rocissono (mother) appeals the family
  court's refusal to  assume jurisdiction over the parties' custody dispute
  concerning their two children.  We vacate  the court's decision and remand
  the matter for further proceedings.

       Mother and defendant Michael Spykes (father)  were married in 1985 and
  divorced in  1994.  Their North Carolina divorce decree gave mother primary
  custody of the parties' two  children, a girl born in November 1985 and a
  boy born in January 1991.  Father was awarded  liberal visitation rights. 
  Following the parties' divorce, mother married Dean Rocissono.   Mother and
  her family moved to Vermont from North Carolina on September 5, 1997, the
  same 

 

  date father filed a petition in North Carolina asking the court to modify
  visitation or transfer  custody to him.  Apparently, the petition was
  either withdrawn or settled by stipulation after  mother agreed to allow
  the children to spend their summers with father, who moved to Arizona  at
  some point before the instant dispute arose.

       In June 1998, the parties' two children traveled to Arizona for a
  scheduled summer visit  with father.  On August 7, 1998, two days before
  the children were to return to Vermont, father  filed with the Arizona
  superior court a petition seeking emergency modification of visitation or 
  custody.  In the petition, father stated that he had spoken to mother by
  telephone on August 6  and August 7, and in the conversations mother
  admitted that her husband had disciplined the  children inappropriately,
  and that she was powerless to stop the physical and verbal abuse.  On  the
  same day that father filed the petition, mother left her husband and sought
  refuge in a shelter  for battered women.  On August 11, 1998, the Arizona
  court assumed emergency jurisdiction  over the matter and granted father
  temporary custody of the children.  The court explicitly stated  that it
  had not determined whether to exercise its jurisdiction other than on an
  emergency,  temporary basis.

       On October 8, 1998, mother filed a petition in Vermont requesting that
  the family court  assume jurisdiction over the parties' custody dispute and
  enforce the North Carolina divorce  decree granting her custody of the
  children. Father appeared by counsel after having been  personally served
  in Arizona.  Six days later, by motion-reaction form, the family court
  granted  mother's request that it assume jurisdiction over the custody
  dispute.  On December 4, 1998,  however, the Arizona superior court
  determined that the safety of the children required it to  exercise
  jurisdiction over the matter.  Noting that a telephonic conference had been
  held with  Judge Ben Joseph of the Vermont family court, the Arizona
  superior court stated that it was in 

 

  the children's best interest that they continue to reside in Arizona
  because mother had reconciled  with her husband, who posed a danger to the
  children.  The Arizona court further concluded that  Arizona was the most
  convenient forum to decide the custody dispute because the children had 
  resided there since August 1998 and their therapist and counselors
  possessed the most relevant  information regarding the alleged abuse.  Four
  days later, on December 8, 1998, the Vermont  family court issued an entry
  order scheduling a hearing to reconsider mother's request for the  court to
  assume jurisdiction over the parties' custody dispute.

       On February 19, 1999, following a December 15, 1998 hearing, the
  Vermont family  court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the matter. 
  Noting that it had not conferred with the  Arizona court before initially
  deciding to assume jurisdiction, the family court stated that because  the
  Arizona court had already lawfully assumed jurisdiction, the "real"
  question was whether  custody proceedings should take place only in Arizona
  or in both Arizona and Vermont.   The  family court concluded that Vermont
  would be an inappropriate and inconvenient forum because  mother had
  reconciled with her husband, who continued to pose a threat to the
  children, and the  children's best interest dictated that they reside in a
  nonabusive household while the case was  being litigated.  The court also
  noted that the children's therapist and counselors were in  Arizona, and
  that the children had been in Arizona for as long as they had previously
  been in  Vermont.(FN1)  Finally, the court stated that the Parental
  Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)  precluded Vermont from assuming
  jurisdiction because the Arizona 

 

  court had already exercised jurisdiction over the matter by modifying the
  North Carolina divorce  decree.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f) (court may modify
  custody determination made by court of  another state if it has
  jurisdiction to make custody determination and court of other state either
  no  longer has jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction); 28
  U.S.C. § 1738A(g) (court  shall not exercise jurisdiction over custody
  matter during pendency of proceeding in which court  of another state is
  exercising jurisdiction consistently with PKPA).  Mother appeals the
  February  19 decision, arguing that because Vermont is the children's home
  state, and the Arizona superior  court improperly exercised jurisdiction to
  make a permanent custody determination, the family  court should have
  assumed jurisdiction over the matter.
	
       As the family court pointed out, both Vermont and Arizona have adopted
  the Uniform  Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).  See 15 V.S.A. §§
  1031-1051; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.  §§ 25-431 to 454.  In addition, both
  Vermont and Arizona have recognized the primacy of the  PKPA, which
  represents the federal government's attempt to create some uniformity among
  the  states in their exercise of jurisdiction over interstate custody
  disputes under the UCCJA.   Although the PKPA, unlike the UCCJA, does not
  purport to govern whether a state has  jurisdiction to issue an initial
  custody order, it does govern the enforceability of one state's  custody
  order in another state, as well as the other state's power to modify that
  order; thus, for  all practical purposes, an initial custody order must
  comply with the PKPA in all respects,  including its  preference for
  home-state jurisdiction.  See Columb v. Columb, 161 Vt. 103, 108-09, 110,