Case Title: Payrits v. Payrits

Citation: 171 Vt. 50, 757 A.2d 469

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Payrits v. Payrits (99-408); 171 Vt. 50; 757 A.2d 469

[Filed 16-Jun-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. 99-408

Deanna Payrits	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Rutland Family Court

Scott Payrits	                                 April Term, 2000

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

Bryden F. Dow, West Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward R. Seager, P.C., Rutland, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Plaintiff-mother Deanna Payrits appeals a Rutland
  Family Court decision  granting sole parental rights and responsibilities
  for their children to defendant-father Scott Payrits.   Mother contends
  that the court erred by (1) finding that both parents have been primary
  care  providers for their children; (2) failing to find that mother is the
  primary care provider and failing to  conclude that the children should
  remain with mother absent a finding of the mother's unfitness; and  (3)
  failing to find that other 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) factors either favored mother
  or were neutral.  We  affirm.

       The family court found the following relevant facts.  The parties were
  married in 1991.  In  1992,  they had a daughter.  Between 1991 and 1994,
  the family moved several times.  In 1994, they

 

  moved to Vermont, and a son was born shortly thereafter.  The family lived
  with father's  parents from 1994 to 1996.  Throughout this time, father
  worked full-time and attended classes at a  community college, while mother
  worked sporadically.  

       The marriage experienced problems in the summer of 1996.  Mother filed
  for a separation  and moved into an apartment.  On September 4, 1996, the
  parties stipulated to a temporary order  which provided that the parents
  would share both legal and physical parental rights and  responsibilities,
  and that each would have equal time with the children.  

       In early 1997, the parties reconciled and moved in together.  Mother
  worked part-time at a  day care center, which the children attended. 
  Father continued to work full-time, though he ceased  attending classes,
  due in part to the demands of the household.  In 1998, the family
  experienced some  financial difficulties.  Problems arose in the marriage
  again, due in part to mother's "socializing,"  which affected her ability
  to devote her attention to the children.  

       In July 1998, mother filed for divorce.  Father moved out of the
  family apartment.  Mother  was fired from her job, and developed a
  relationship with another man.  In September 1998, the  parties again
  stipulated to shared legal parental rights and responsibilities.  Mother
  was assigned sole  physical rights and responsibilities, based on father's
  work schedule.  As a practical matter, the court  found, each parent spent
  equal time with the children.  

       In the fall of 1998, mother moved without telling father.  She
  transferred daughter to a new  school and son to new day care provider
  without informing father.

       The family court held divorce hearings over two days in the summer of
  1999.  The court  found that both parents had provided primary care for the
  children since they were born and that the  parties had shared equal time
  with the children from the September 4, 1996 stipulation until the time 

 

  of its August 1999 final divorce order.  It found that the children's
  schedule, with its frequent  transfers between parents, was "hectic" and
  inconsistent with the regular, stable schedule they  required.  It
  considered the probable effects on the best interests of each child if
  custody were  assigned to each parent.

       The court also considered, as required, each of the nine factors set
  out in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)  ("In making an order under [§ 665], the court
  shall be guided by the best interests of the child, and  shall consider at
  least the following factors[.]").  Although mother disputes this, the
  record is clear  that the court found in favor of father in five of the
  factors (1-4, 7), in favor of neither party in three  (5,6, and 8), and
  that one factor did not apply (9).  

       Based on its findings, the court concluded that neither parent was
  unfit to raise the children,  but that because shuttling the children
  between the households was not in the children's best  interests, sole
  parental rights and responsibilities should belong to father:

          The factors as reviewed by the court show that between the 
     two parties, [father] has a greater sense of stability, greater maturity, 
     and a greater orientation toward the needs of the children. [Mother] is 
     a loving parent, enjoys the children, but is not as able to provide a 
     stable home environment for the children and is not as mature in her 
     ability to communicate about the children and to put the children's 
     needs first.

  The court also emphasized that the children's relationship with father's
  extended family also strongly  favored its decision.  Mother now appeals,
  arguing that the family court's findings of fact and  conclusions of law
  were erroneous.

       Mother is misguided in contending that our standard of review is de
  novo.  The family court  has broad discretion in awarding custody, and its
  findings will not be overturned unless clearly  erroneous.  See Putnam v.
  Putnam, 166 Vt. 108, 116-17,