Case Title: Chickanosky v. Chickanosky

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2011-305

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Chickanosky v. Chickanosky (2011-305)
 
2012 VT 52
 
[Filed 11-Jul-2012]
 
ENTRY ORDER
 
2012 VT 52
 
SUPREME COURT
  DOCKET NO. 2011-305
 
MARCH TERM, 2012
 
Michael Chickanosky 
}
APPEALED FROM:
 
}
 
 
}
 
     v.
}
Superior Court, Addison Unit,
 
}
Family Division
 
}
 
Margaret Chickanosky
}
DOCKET NO. 105-6-05
  Andm
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Judge: Nancy Corsones
 
In the above-entitled
cause, the Clerk will enter:
 
¶ 1.            
The present appeal is the third in as many years involving the same
parties.  Mother appeals a family court order modifying her parent-child
contact rights.  We affirm.
¶ 2.            
The parties originally agreed to share parental rights and responsibilities
as part of a December 2005 divorce order.  In 2009, the family court
granted, in part, father's motion to modify the original divorce order by
awarding him sole legal parental rights and responsibilities.  We affirmed
in a three-justice entry order.  See Chickanosky v. Chickanosky,
Nos. 2009-094 & 2009-444, 2010 WL 7799902 (Vt. May 21, 2010) (unpub. mem.),
http://vermont judiciary.org/ d-upeo/eo09-094.pdf.
¶ 3.            
In July 2010, the family court granted father's second motion to modify
based on his planned move to Missouri.  The court awarded him legal and
physical parental rights and responsibilities, with mother having summertime
and vacation parent-child contact.  Specifically, the court provided that
mother was entitled to "[e]ach summer vacation except for the first and last
week of summer vacation," and was "encouraged to visit [daughter] in Missouri
to help with the transition and familiarize herself with [daughter's] new house
and school," in addition to "[r]easonable contact if she is in Missouri or if
[father] brings [daughter] to Vermont."  We affirmed in a full-court
decision.  See Chickanosky v. Chickanosky, 2011 VT 110, ___ Vt.
___, 35 A.3d 132.
¶ 4.            
The parties then got into a dispute over mother's unplanned or short-notice
visits to Missouri.  Three days after daughter left Vermont, and before a
school was selected in Missouri, mother notified father that she planned to
travel to Missouri beginning August 15 and she wanted daughter to stay with her
in a hotel that week.  Because the parties were unable to work out a
contact schedule, due in part to their "historically bad communication," father
filed an emergency motion to clarify contact on August 12, 2010.  The
court denied the motion the next day, noting that "[mother] is entitled to
reasonable parent-child contact while she is in MO.  The court expects the
parties to work cooperatively to ensure that the minor child has an enjoyable
first week of schoolfree from parental strife."  On August 17, 2010
mother filed an emergency motion to enforce, which the court granted in part,
stating mother could have contact that week from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and the
following weekend as proposed by father in his previous pleadings.
¶ 5.            
Also in early August, father informed mother that his family had made
plans for weekends away from Missouri from October 2-3 and October 28-31. 
He offered mother other October weekends for visits, but she could not arrange
for a trip to Missouri during those weekends.  When October arrived,
mother filed another emergency motion to allow her to spend October 25-31 with
daughter in Missouri.  She also moved on a nonemergency basis to clarify
"the parent-child contact schedule for this school year and for the
future."  The court denied the emergency motion, and noted it would set a
hearing date for the nonemergency motion.  Around October 21, mother again
asked father for time with daughter from October 28-November 1, but father
reiterated that he had plans to be out of town that weekend, and offered her
time from October 23-24, though mother declined this offer.  The court
found that daughter somehow became aware that mother was planning a visit in
October, and that daughter was "again caught in the middle of strife created
solely by her mother's last minute, unplanned and inconsiderate demand for
contact."    
¶ 6.            
Parent-child contact continued, apparently without significant problems,
through February.[1] 
Because of snow days in Missouri, daughter's school vacation in February was
cut short.  Mother desired to fly daughter to Vermont for seventy-two
hours, while father opposed this.  Mother filed another emergency motion
in February 2011, accusing father of willfully and maliciously violating the
court's parent-child contact order, which the court denied.  Mother
ultimately traveled to Missouri and spent the weekend of February 17-20 with
daughter.  Father did not allow daughter to have overnights with mother
the following three nights because they were school nights, though mother had
daughter with her each evening for dinner.  The court found that mother
was "bitterly resentful" that father did not allow her overnight contact on
school nights, and concluded that mother was "patently unreasonable" in her
request that daughter be flown to Vermont for a seventy-two hour trip and in
requesting overnight contact on school nights.  
¶ 7.            
In March, mother traveled to Missouri despite the fact that daughter did
not have school vacation.  Around this time, mother found a house to rent
during her visit; it was located between daughter's home and her school. 
The court found that mother did not tell father she had rented the house. 
Daughter stayed at the house during mother's time in Missouri in March. 
Although there was some dispute about whether mother told daughter not to tell
father about the house, the court found that daughter said nothing for several
days.  After daughter's disclosure to father, an email exchange followed
where father requested that mother inform him about where she was staying, to
which mother responded that "[i]t has never been a secret where I am
staying."  The court found that this situation caught daughter in the
middle of parental strife created by mother, which could have been avoided if
she had told father she rented the house.  Following this conflict, father
filed his own motion to clarify the contact schedule in April 2011.  
¶ 8.            
In late May, daughter arrived in Vermont for her summer vacation with
mother.  At some point, father discovered that, unbeknownst to him, mother
had given daughter an iPhone.  When father asked daughter for the access
code to check the phone, daughter became upset.  The court found that
mother's attitude with regard to this incident was "much ado about nothing" and
that she was oblivious to the fact that the situation could have been avoided
if she had simply told father about the phone and its limitations on internet
usage. 
¶ 9.            
Following a hearing in July 2011, the court entered a twenty-five page
order which clarified and modified parent-child contact.  The court found
that mother placed her needs ahead of the best interests of daughter, engaged
in selfish and unreasonable behavior, has been patently unreasonable, has had
"no insight whatsoever" as to why her behavior has caused daughter stress, and
has failed to gain insight "as to the devastating impact of her
behavior."  The court also found that father attempted to relieve
daughter's stress and that his "good basic parenting" has allowed daughter to
have a "consistent, stable routine."  The court found a change in
circumstances because mother's harmful behavior had not lessened, as
anticipated by the court's July 2010 order.  Turning to the best-interests
analysis, the court found that daughter's emotional development would be harmed
if she spent the whole summer with mother.  Thus, the court set forth a
specific contact schedule and limited mother's summertime contact to
approximately one month.  
¶ 10.        
Mother appeals, arguing that: (1) the court exceeded its jurisdiction
and violated her right to due process by issuing an order limiting her
summertime contact with daughter insofar as she was never notified that
summertime contact would be at issue; (2) father failed to make an adequate
showing that there was a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in
material circumstances to modify the previous custody order; and (3) the court
failed to consider the best-interests factors in further limiting her contact
with daughter.
¶ 11.        
Mother argues that the motions before the court referred exclusively to
contact in Missouri, not summertime contact, and therefore she had no notice
that the court would consider modifying her summertime contact.
¶ 12.        
Mother claimed that there was a change in circumstances with respect to
parent-child contact in her October 2010 motion.  Mother requested in
pertinent part "clarification regarding the parent-child contact schedule for
this school year and for the future," that a cell phone be given to daughter,
that father pay daughter's travel expenses, that she have a blocks of time with
daughter in Missouri, that she be given specified periods of contact time from
October 2010 to May 2011, and that she be able to travel internationally with
daughter in the summer.  In March 2011, the court characterized mother's
motion as a motion for "enforcement and clarification/modification
of . . . parental rights," and said it would set all
pending motions for a full-day hearing.  
¶ 13.        
Father's April 2011 motion requested an order precluding mother from
traveling to Missouri unannounced, precluding mother from contacting daughter
should mother travel to Missouri, prohibiting her from interfering with daughter's
flights, requiring communication with father on time spent in Vermont, and
"[a]ll other and further relief which the Court deems just."  At the start
of the hearing, father's attorney stated that the issue was the "visitation
schedule in Missouri andand other visitation."  Mother's attorney then
stated that "the primary issue is how many days is [mother] going to spend with
[daughter] in Missouri and clarifying contact issues," and the court said, "I
agree with you."  
¶ 14.        
 The parties' motions clearly contemplated a change in parent-child
contact, as the court recognized.  Both parties pleaded the existence of a
change in circumstances; mother's own motion raised the issue of summertime
contact, and father's motion argued for limitations on mother's contact. 
Importantly, mother argued below that there
was a change in circumstances because the school vacation schedules in Missouri
and Vermont conflicted, and also because she alleged that father engaged in
obstructionist behavior regarding parent-child contact.  Thus, her
argument that she had no notice fails.  A request to open inquiry into one
aspect of parent-child contact opens for inquiry the entire contact schedule,
since it implicates the best interests of the child.  Parent-child contact
provisions do not stand alone, but are inextricably linked to create a
visitation scheme.  Cf. Cleverly v. Cleverly, 151 Vt. 351, 355-56, 561 A.2d 99, 102 (1989)
(characterizing parent-child contact schedule as a "pattern of visitation").  Thus, mother cannot
claim a change in circumstances and ask for what amounts to a modification of
visitation, and then complain when the court, in its discretion, considers the
whole of the contact schedule.
¶ 15.        
Mother also argues that the court's finding of a real, substantial, and
unanticipated change in circumstances was based on speculation, and that there
have been positive changes in the parties' relationship.  She also argues
that the case should be remanded for a clarifying order because the court erroneously
interpreted the July 2010 order when it suggested that the court previously
changed custody to reduce mother's influence over daughter and to reduce
mother's contact with daughter.  
¶ 16.        
Because mother pled a change of circumstances below, she cannot now
complain that the court so found.  Cf. P.F. Jurgs & Co. v. O'Brien,
160 Vt. 294, 303, 629 A.2d 325, 331 (1993) (noting that, where party argued
below that contract was ambiguous, he "can hardly complain" on appeal that
court admitted extrinsic evidence to aid in contract construction).  We do, however, address mother's contention
that the court erroneously interpreted the July 2010 order.  We conclude
that mother is incorrect, and that the court properly interpreted the order as
awarding father physical parental rights and responsibilities because it was in
daughter's best interests.  In July 2010, the court concluded that
daughter would have the "best chance to succeed in school, and to develop a
healthy self-confidence and autonomy as her own person," and that she would
maintain relationships with all her family members, if she moved to Missouri
with father.  Here, the court interpreted the order in part as meaning
that daughter would develop more self-confidence as a result of being physically
separated from mother, due to mother's ongoing pattern of smothering
behavior.  This interpretation is not erroneous, since the July 2010 order
contemplated that daughter would thrive, and the transfer of custody was in
daughter's best interests.
¶ 17.        
Mother's final argument is that the court's findings do not support its
conclusion that limiting mother's summertime contact with daughter is in
daughter's best interests.  In reviewing a decision regarding parent-child
contact, we accord the court substantial deference.  "[W]e do not disturb
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we uphold the court's
legal conclusions if they are supported by the findings."  DeSantis v.
Pegues, 2011 VT 114, ¶ 26, ___ Vt. ___, 35 A.3d 152.  We view the
findings in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and only reverse
if the court exercised its discretion "upon unfounded considerations or to an
extent clearly unreasonable upon the facts presented."  Id.
(quotation omitted).
¶ 18.        
When asked on direct examination whether he had a request with respect
to changing summertime contact before the court, father testified:
 
I struggleI have struggled for days and days and days trying to figure out how
best to handle this, and just like the same struggle with weighing the impact
to [daughter] of not seeing her mom versus the impact short-term and long-term,
and I don'tthat ten weeks is about what the summer is, aboutit's about 75
days or so that she's in Vermont.  II believe that that length of time
negatively impacts my relationship to the point where ififperhaps it's not
addressed that I willI believe inat some point I'm going to lose contact with
[daughter] completely if something doesn't change.  
¶ 19.        
As always, the best interests of the child are paramount.  The
court, correctly focusing on daughter's best interests, concluded that spending
the entire summer with mother, with no opportunity for father to take a summer
vacation with daughter, was not in daughter's best interests.  Assuming
the applicability of the best-interests factors contained in 15 V.S.A.
§ 665, the court's analysis is supported.  Although the court did not
explicitly go through the factors, it clearly considered the relevant ones in
its decision.  Specifically, looking at the order as a whole, the court
considered § 665(b)(1), the relationship of the
child with each parent and the ability and disposition of each parent to
provide the child with love, affection, and guidance, and
§ 665(b)(3), the ability and disposition of each parent to meet the
child's present and future developmental needs.
¶ 20.        
Father's testimony indicated that daughter's best interests would be
served by having physical contact with both parents over the summer, as opposed
to mother only.  He testified that mother's visits were detrimental to
daughter, that mother's interactions were perilous and disingenuous, and that
he does not have telephone or Skype contact with daughter when she is away
without "pressure and intensity," stating that mother often emails him with a
recap of the conversation and why it has made daughter uncomfortable. 
This evidence supports the court's findings about mother's unreasonableness and
lack of insight, and father's efforts to minimize daughter's stress, which in
turn support the conclusion that daughter's best interests would be served by
limiting mother's summertime contact.  
Affirmed.
 
 
BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Reiber, Chief
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
John A. Dooley, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Marilyn S. Skoglund,
  Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. Burgess, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Beth Robinson, Associate
  Justice
 

[1] 
A conflict arose over the holidays surrounding flights and travel
expenses.  Daughter spent her holiday break in Vermont.  Her flight
back to Missouri was cancelled because of bad weather, and mother got a hotel
room in Boston.  She accused father of "mak[ing] money on the deal" by
getting a voucher from the airline because of the cancellation.  The court
stated that father, as custodial parent, makes the travel decisions, but urged
him to consider daughter's travel time when making flight arrangements.  This
issue is not on appeal.