Case Title: Gabriel v. Pritchard

Citation: 173 Vt. 452, 788 A.2d 1

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gabriel v. Pritchard (2000-250); 173 Vt. 452; 788 A.2d 1

[Filed 26-Sept-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-250

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

Tracy R. Gabriel	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Windham Family Court
                                       }	
Brian J. Pritchard	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. F113-3-95Wmdm

                                                Trial Judge: John P. Wesley

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Father, Brian Pritchard, appeals the order of the family court
  suspending indefinitely visitation  with his daughter, Briana, and granting
  sole legal parental rights and responsibilities (PRR) to  Briana's mother. 
  Father argues that (1) the court's rulings are not supported by the record,
  (2) he was  not properly noticed for the hearing on mother's motion to
  modify legal PRR, (3) the court  improperly admitted a "past recorded
  recollection" of mother, and (4) the court abused its discretion  when it
  appointed mother's uncle to supervise father's past visits.  We affirm.

       Mother and father were living together in Florida at the time of
  Briana's birth on January 1,  1993.  Shortly thereafter, mother moved to
  Vermont with Briana to live with mother's family, and  father remained in
  Florida.  A Florida paternity decree awarded physical custody to mother,
  granted  father visitation, and awarded joint legal PRR. (FN1)  Father did
  not exercise visitation regularly at  first under the Florida order. 
  Father then moved to Massachusetts in August or September of 1994,  at
  which time he began visiting with Briana regularly for a period of several
  months.  A pattern  developed, however, in which father would schedule
  visitation and then would make changes when  the visit approached.  Briana
  then began resisting his visitation.   

       Father's last visit during this period occurred in March 1995 when he
  absconded with Briana  following an argument with mother, forcing mother to
  call the police.  Father then returned to Florida  in August 1995, but
  mother did not become aware of this until December of that year.  Between 
  March 1995 and July 1996, father did not have any contact with Briana, with
  the exception of a  Halloween card he sent.  Mother sought to modify the
  portion of the Florida decree governing  parent-child contact.  While the
  action was pending, the family court entered a temporary order  setting up
  supervised visitation.  In a final order dated July 18, 1996, the court
  modified father's  contact schedule with Briana, gradually increasing
  visitation to allow Briana to readjust to contact  with her father and
  ultimately reestablishing the schedule set forth in the Florida court
  order. 

 

       Only one day of visitation took place under the court's July 1996
  order.  Because of the prior  incident involving the police, mother's uncle
  was present at the drop-off following this visit.   Mother's uncle is a
  former police officer and volunteers as a guardian ad litem with the
  Windham  Family Court.  According to uncle, father would not at first bring
  Briana inside, and when he did  finally, he stood at the end of the hallway
  with the crying child in his arms, goading mother with  questions about
  whether she really wanted Briana back.  Briana was having trouble breathing 
  because father was squeezing her so hard, and he did not let go until uncle
  approached him, at which  time Briana ran to her mother.  Mother did not
  bring Briana back the next day for visitation because  of this incident. 

       Mother testified that in the months following this isolated visit,
  father called her several times  and left messages, but he did not leave a
  phone number where he could be reached and did not  mention that he was
  interested in visitation.  Mother also indicated that father did not make
  any  contact during Christmas or on Briana's birthdays.  They did receive a
  box of toys before Christmas  of 1996, but there was no note or return
  address with the package.  Mother sent two certified letters  to father
  regarding visitation, both of which went unclaimed.  Mother indicated that
  Briana did not  ask about her father during this period of no contact. 

       Following this period of two and a half years, father contacted
  mother's attorney on April 5,  1999, indicating that he would be coming to
  Vermont to collect Briana for seven days of over-night  visitation starting
  on April 12.  In response, mother filed a motion on April 7 for an
  emergency, ex  parte order modifying visitation.  The family court granted
  the motion, ordering that father have only  supervised visitation for
  several hours a day for the seven-day period.  The court subsequently held
  a  hearing on April 13 at which both parties were present.

       After the hearing, the court established a temporary schedule for
  monthly supervised visitation  and weekly telephone contact for Briana and
  her father, and appointed mother's uncle to supervise  visits.  The court
  noted both at the hearing and in its order that father's failure to
  maintain contact  with Briana as established by the court's temporary order
  could result in suspension of his parent-child contact. 

       Another hearing took place on December 13, 1999.  Father was now
  living in Cheyenne,  Wyoming. (FN2)  Mother stated that Briana had
  developed behavioral problems leading up to and  following the monthly
  visitation with her father, including having bathroom accidents, becoming 
  withdrawn and at other times becoming violent.  Mother also testified that
  father did not use all of  his available visitation days, including not
  showing up for three days of visitation he had scheduled  in October
  without calling ahead to cancel and canceling his July and November
  visitation.  With  respect to the telephone contact, mother testified that
  father called only seven times.  Briana spoke  with him the first time he
  called, but thereafter refused to speak with him.  Mother indicated that
  the  phone calls were sporadic and did not always come on time. 

 

       Mother also testified that she had made all decisions regarding
  Briana's health and welfare  since she left Florida with her in 1993.  She
  and father could not converse constructively about  Briana because father
  continually, and inappropriately, would turn the conversation to mother and 
  father's previous relationship; therefore, she stopped discussing matters
  concerning Brianna with  him. 

       Uncle also testified, relating his observations made while supervising
  father's visits with  Briana.  He chronicled a series of bizarre behaviors
  by father during the visits, including father  incessantly taking pictures
  of Briana.  He described father and Briana's interaction as that of
  "pursuit  and avoidance," with Briana trying to hide from father and often
  crying when father was pursuing  her.  Uncle said that he had also
  witnessed Briana cry and throw tantrums about having to go to  visitation. 

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the family court issued an oral
  decision in which it  determined by clear and convincing evidence that it
  was not in Briana's best interest that she have  continuing contact with
  father.  The court suspended any further parent-child contact and granted 
  mother sole legal PRR.  It subsequently issued a written order setting
  forth in more detail its reasons  for doing so.  Father now appeals. 

       Father argues that the court's findings and conclusions resulting in
  the suspension of his  visitation rights are not supported in the record. 
  We will not disturb findings of fact unless they are  clearly erroneous.
  Nickerson v. Nickerson, 158 Vt. 85, 88-89, 605 A.2d 1331, 1333 (1992).  
  Therefore, on appeal "our role is limited to determining whether they are
  supported by credible  evidence."  In re D.C., 168 Vt. 1,4,