Case Title: Johnson v. Johnson

Citation: 163 Vt 491, 659 A.2d 1149

Docket Number: 94-146

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
JOHNSON_V_JOHNSON.94-146; 163 Vt 491; 659 A.2d 1149

[Filed 14-Apr-1995]

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. 94-146


Ray R. Johnson                                    Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Franklin Family Court

Valerie J. Johnson                                November Term, 1994



Linda Levitt, J.

William G. Congleton, Essex Junction, for plaintiff-appellee

Paul D. Jarvis of Jarvis and Kaplan, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   Defendant Valerie Johnson appeals a divorce judgment,
arguing that the family court abused its discretion by (1) giving plaintiff
Ray Johnson sole parental rights and responsibilities of the parties'
seven-year-old daughter, (2) allowing the child's guardian ad litem (GAL) to
testify in violation of V.R.F.P. 7, and (3) awarding her one-half the equity
in the marital home to be paid in twelve years without any provision for
interest on account of the delay in payment.  We reverse. 

     The parties had been married approximately six years when in July 1993
the father moved out of the marital home and into his parents' home.  At the
temporary hearing in September 1993, the court placed Caila in the care of
her mother, who had been the child's primary caregiver during the marriage. 
Following the final hearing in February 1994, however, the court awarded the
father parental rights and responsibilities and granted the mother liberal
parent-child contact.  The court also awarded the father the marital home,
subject to a second mortgage held by the mother in the amount of $6000 --
one-half the equity that had accrued to that point -- to 

 

be paid off when Caila turned eighteen or the house was sold, whichever
occurred sooner. There was no provision for interest. 

     The mother argues that the court abused its discretion in awarding the
father parental rights and responsibilities.  She contends that instead of
giving great weight to her role as the child's primary caregiver, the court
improperly relied on the role of the father's mother, who provided much of
Caila's day-to-day care when the child was with the father, and on a
statement made by the GAL.  She further contends that the court failed to
make adequate findings on whether she was an unfit parent, and whether taking
Caila away from her, the primary caregiver, would have a detrimental effect
on the child. 

     For the most part, this case pitted the testimony of the father and his
family against the testimony of the mother and her family.  The father
testified that the mother slapped him after the parties missed each other
during an attempted visitation drop-off.  The father's sister testified that
three years earlier, shortly after the parties' first separation, the mother
threw a plant stand at her after arguing with the father.  The father's
mother testified that on another occasion the mother had kicked Caila in the
ankle after Caila kicked the mother to get her attention.  The father's
brother, who conceded on cross-examination that he had not been around the
mother for some time, reported that he had seen the mother pinch Caila for
pinching another child. 

     For her part, the mother suggested that some of her behavior could be
attributed to her breakup with the father and to bouts of depression that had
long since ended.  She testified that she had been on medication for
post-partum depression and anxiety between 1987 and 1990 -- due in part to a
lack of support from the father -- but that she had not needed the medication
for several years.  Two of the mother's family members testified that she was
a good mother who handled her daughter well. 

     The "wild card" in this case was the father's testimony that the mother
told him that members of her family, including a brother who had recently
moved into the marital home with her and Caila, had sexually abused her as a
child.  The testimony regarding this potentially 

 

crucial issue was extremely limited.  The father did not indicate when the
mother had told him of the abuse or provide any specific information
concerning the nature of the abuse or when it allegedly occurred.  The mother
denied that her father and brothers had abused her and denied ever having
told the father such a thing. She stated that her brother was temporarily
residing with her and Caila because he was out of work.  The court's findings
suggest that the judge was not sure the abuse actually occurred, but believed
the father's testimony that the mother had told him she was abused. 

     Beyond the testimony noted above, there was no evidence that the mother
was an unfit mother or that Caila's development was languishing.  The
witnesses generally agreed that both parents loved Caila.  The father's
mother testified that Caila was doing better in school.  The mother testified
that she had been in regular contact with school officials and had enrolled
Caila in a program designed to help children of divorced parents cope with
their loss.  The father's family testified that the father spent much of his
free time with Caila, but there was little evidence on his involvement in her
schooling or other activities.  There was no testimony from counselors or
other independent sources regarding Caila's progress in school or her
emotional attachment to either her father or her mother.  In short, evidence
on how Caila would be affected by a transfer of custody was sparse. 

     In making its decision regarding parental rights and responsibilities,
the court was faced with accusations against the mother that were based, for
the most part, on testimony concerning only a few isolated incidents.  The
court had to weigh this testimony, while keeping in mind the significance
generally accorded to the role of the primary caregiver.  See Harris v.
Harris, 149 Vt. 410, 418,