Case Title: Brennan v. Brennan

Citation: 165 Vt 525, 685 A.2d 1104

Docket Number: 95-653

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Brennan v. Brennan  (95-653); 165 Vt 525; 685 A.2d 1104

[Opinion Filed 04-Oct-1996]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 24-Oct-1996]

       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. 95-653


Richard Brennan                                   Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Addison Family Court

Cheryl Brennan                                    June Term, 1996


Matthew I. Katz, J.

Andrew D. Mikell of Mikell & Hartsuff, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

D. Michael Mathes of Conley & Foote, Middlebury, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       ALLEN, C.J.   The mother of a minor child appeals from an order of the
  Addison Family Court awarding custody of the child to the father.  We
  reverse.

       The parties married in 1986 and have one child, Cody, who was three
  and a half years old at the time of the final hearing in November 1995. 
  Following the separation of the parties, the child lived with the mother in
  the marital home, and the court found that she was the primary caregiver. 
  Both parties have present relationships.  According to the court, the
  father's girlfriend, who attended the hearing, "seems quite clearly
  attached to Cody."

       In findings central to its decision, the court focused on the daily
  schedules of the parents. The mother, who is employed in an unskilled
  position and works from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., takes Cody to the day care
  provider by 5:15, while he is still sleeping.  Cody usually awakens around
  7:00 and dresses himself.  The day care provider gives him breakfast, and
  the two wait for the other children to arrive.  The mother usually picks
  Cody up around 3:15.  The court compared this scenario with one posed by
  the father, who works in a skilled position and begins work at 7:00 a.m. 
  The court noted that the father and his girlfriend have found a day care

 

  provider near their home and places of employment.  The court further found
  that attending day care while in the father's custody would have two
  advantages for Cody.  He would be awakened and taken to day care a "full
  hour later each day."  In addition, the work schedule of the father's
  girlfriend would allow her to stay home with Cody two days one week and
  three days the next week. Thus, if the father were awarded custody, Cody
  would spend five days, instead of ten, in day care.

       In its conclusions, the court cited deBeaumont v. Goodrich, 162 Vt.
  91, 101,