Case Title: Kasper v. Kasper

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2006-171

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Kasper v.  Kasper (2006-171)

2007 VT 2

[Filed 04-Jan-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2007 VT 2

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-171

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2006


  Joseph P. Kasper                     }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
      v.                               }
                                       }         Washington Family Court
                                       }
  Eileen Kasper                        }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 346-9-04 Wndm

                                                 Trial Judge: Christina Reiss

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1.  Father appeals the family court's final divorce decree in
  which the court assigned physical rights and responsibilities for both of
  the couple's minor children to father but assigned legal rights and
  responsibilities for the youngest child, Masen, to mother.  Father received
  legal rights and responsibilities for Nolan. 

       ¶ 2.  Joseph and Eileen Kasper were married in 1985.  They
  separated in 2004.  They have two minor children, Nolan, age seventeen, and
  Masen, age six.  Mother was willing to share parental rights and
  responsibilities for the two minor children, but father refused.  Thus, the
  trial court had to award sole legal and physical rights and
  responsibilities to one parent or the other.  The court found that mother
  was the primary caregiver until each of the children reached school age,
  and she brought them to work with her when it was necessary for her to do
  so.  Mother has demonstrated love and affection and has consistently
  addressed their medical needs.  Mother was the primary source of regular
  income for the family, and she paid all of the household bills.  As the
  children entered school, father adjusted his work schedule to better help
  the children get ready for school.  He was also home when they got home. 
  The minor children have primarily resided with father since the separation,
  although Nolan attends boarding school.  Father has been primarily
  responsible for daily care of Masen and for getting both boys to sporting
  events. 
   
       ¶ 3.  In evaluating the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665, the
  family court concluded that both parties had involved the children in their
  marital disputes, "including within the court's observation.  Mr. Kasper
  has done this to a greater extent than Ms. Kasper.  In addition, he has
  fostered the children's alienation from their mother."  The court
  determined both parties to be equally capable of providing for their
  children's present and future developmental needs.  The court agreed with
  father that neither Nolan nor Masen would benefit from moving their primary
  residence to mother's home; however, the court concluded that "Eileen
  Kasper has demonstrated parental judgment at least equivalent to that of
  her husband.  She has participated in her children's sports activities
  without giving them undue precedence.  She has always been the primary
  decision-maker regarding non-emergency medical care."  The family court
  noted that Nolan demonstrated significant alienation from his mother.  "The
  estrangement between Nolan and his mother renders it impossible for her to
  exercise legal rights and responsibilities by consulting with him and
  seeking his input regarding her decision making.  At 17 years old, a child
  should be able to participate in this process."  Thus, the family court
  agreed that father should have both legal and physical rights and
  responsibilities for Nolan.

       ¶ 4.  The court determined that Masen's relationship with his
  mother was strong, and that it was in his best interests to protect that
  relationship.  Granting father all decision-making authority would likely
  exclude mother from the process completely.  The court noted that if
  parents cannot agree, one party must have the ability to make decisions on
  behalf of the child.  "But that requirement does not lead to the inexorable
  conclusion that one parent must be awarded all rights and
  responsibilities."  Shea v. Metcalf, 167 Vt. 494, 500, 712 A.2d 887, 890-91
  (1998).  Therefore, the family court awarded physical rights and
  responsibilities for Masen to father, but it awarded legal rights and
  responsibilities to mother.  

       ¶ 5.  "The family court has broad discretion in awarding custody,
  and its findings will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous."  Payrits
  v. Payrits, 171 Vt. 50, 52-53,