Case Title: Habecker v. Giard

Citation: 175 Vt. 489, 2003 VT 18, 820 A.2d 215

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
Habecker v. Giard (2002-334); 175 Vt. 489; 820 A.2d 215

2003 VT 18

[Filed 14-Feb-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 18

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-334

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2002

  Kimberly A. Habecker	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
  Christopher Giard	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 362-4-96 Cndm

                                                Trial Judge:  Helen M. Toor

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

       ¶  1.  Mother appeals from a Chittenden Family Court order granting
  legal and physical custody of the parties' four children to father. 
  Mother, who is not married to father, claims that the court erred by: 1)
  finding a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances when
  the evidence did not support such a finding; 2) concluding that transfer of
  physical custody and legal parental rights and responsibilities to father
  was in the children's best interests; and 3) improperly placing the burden
  upon mother to file a motion to modify custody order prior to relocating. 
  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The family court found the following facts.  Mother and
  father lived together with their children for many years in Vermont, Maine,
  and New Hampshire; mother and father were never married.  In 1996, when the
  parties had three children, they separated and entered into a stipulation
  and final order regarding parental rights and responsibilities.  Under this
  order, mother had sole physical custody, and the parties had joint legal
  custody of the three children.  Father was awarded visitation rights on
  every other weekend and two full weeks during the year, with vacations and
  holidays to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.  In practice, father
  has the children for an additional three hours one evening per week.  After
  the date of the agreement, mother and father later reunited, and their
  fourth child was born in 1998.  In 2000, the parties separated again.  The
  court issued an order in 2001, which granted mother sole physical and legal
  custody of the parties' fourth child.
   
       ¶  3.  In 2001, mother began to contemplate a move from Vermont to
  Arizona, and she mentioned this to father in September.  In November 2001,
  mother sent father a certified letter indicating her intention to relocate
  to Arizona, but he did not receive it.  In January 2002, mother applied for
  a job in the same school system for which father works.  Father was aware
  of this fact, which led him to assume mother had decided to stay in
  Vermont.  One month later, mother became engaged to a man living in Arizona
  whom she apparently met over the Internet.  On March 5, 2002, mother sent
  father a letter stating that she and the children were moving to Arizona
  around June 1.  One week later, mother wrote father again to notify him
  that the move would take place on April 1.  On March 20, 2002, father filed
  a motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities accompanied by an
  emergency motion to prevent the removal of the children from Vermont.  The
  court granted father's emergency motion, denied mother's motion to
  reconsider, and held hearings on the motion to modify on May 13 and June
  21, 2002.

       ¶  4.  The family court issued a twenty-five page, fact-specific
  ruling in which it granted father's motion to modify.  The court awarded
  legal and physical custody of all four children to father, finding that 1)
  the moving party, father, made a showing of a real, substantial and
  unanticipated change of circumstances, and 2) a modification of the prior
  parental rights and responsibilities determination was in the best
  interests of the children.

       ¶  5.  In order to modify custody, a moving party must first make a
  threshold showing of a "real, substantial and unanticipated change of
  circumstances."  15 V.S.A. § 668; deBeaumont v. Goodrich, 162 Vt. 91, 95,