Case Title: Meyer v. Meyer

Citation: 173 Vt. 195, 789 A.2d 921

Docket Number: 2000-420

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Meyer v. Meyer (2000-420); 173 Vt. 195; 789 A.2d 921

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 21-Dec-2001]

       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. 2000-420

                                                 Supreme Court
Lee R. Meyer
                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Family Court

Erika Meyer	                                 March Term, 2001

Linda Levitt, J.

Jack Long of Clark Long & Werner, Burlington, and Carolyn R. Wah, Associate 
  General Counsel, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Patterson, 
  New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nicholas E. Tishler (Of Counsel) of Schoenberg & Associates, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

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

       MORSE, J.   Father appeals from an order of the family court granting
  mother's motion to  modify the parties' original divorce decree regarding
  the allocation of parental rights and  responsibilities for their two
  daughters.  He argues that (1) mother failed to meet the jurisdictional 
  threshold of demonstrating changed circumstances, (2) the court's order and
  its consideration of his  religious beliefs are unconstitutional, and (3)
  the court abused its discretion by failing to appoint a  guardian ad litem
  for the girls.  We affirm.

       Father and mother have two daughters together, Hannah and Hillary.  At
  the time of their  divorce in April 1995, father and mother stipulated to
  joint parental rights and responsibilities for the 

 

  girls.  In June 1999, mother moved to modify the parties' original divorce
  decree, seeking both sole  legal and sole physical rights and
  responsibilities for the children.  Following an eleven-day hearing,  the
  family court granted her motion to modify, ordering that mother have sole
  rights and  responsibilities.  Father appeals to this Court.

                                     I.

       Father first argues that mother failed to demonstrate a real,
  substantial and unanticipated  change in circumstances as required by 15
  V.S.A. § 668 for modification.  Specifically, he argues  that the parties
  have consistently disagreed about major issues concerning the girls since
  the time of  divorce, and that he and mother have never been able to
  communicate effectively.  Thus, he argues  under our holding in Gates v.
  Gates, mother failed to meet the jurisdictional threshold for 
  modification.  Cf. Gates v. Gates, 168 Vt. 64, 68-69,