Case Title: Heffernan v. Harbeson

Citation: 177 Vt. 239, 2004 VT 98, 861 A.2d 1149

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Heffernan v. Harbeson (2004-008); 177 Vt. 239; 861 A.2d 1149

2004 VT 98

[Filed 01-Oct-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 98

                                No. 2004-008

  Kathleen M. Heffernan	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Family Court

  Joseph W. Harbeson	                         September Term, 2004

  Paul F. Hudson, J.

  Patricia G. Benelli of Dakin & Benelli, P.C., Chester, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Jean Anne Kiewel of Weber, Perra, Munzing, Krochmalny & Kiewel, P.C.,
    Brattleboro, for  Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J., Father appeals the family court's ruling that 15
  V.S.A. § 665(a) controls the assignment of parental rights and
  responsibilities in actions brought under the Parentage Proceedings Act
  (PPA), 15 V.S.A. §§ 301-308.  Father also appeals the parent-child contact
  schedule fashioned by the family court on remand from this Court's panel
  decision.  Father claims that the schedule fails to equalize the time that
  his son spends with each parent.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  Mother gave birth to the parties' child in October 1999. 
  Mother and father did not marry.  Both mother and father have been deeply
  involved in the child's upbringing, each dedicating countless hours to
  raising the child.  The parties separated in August 2000, and some months
  later, mother filed this parentage action.  The family court held hearings
  and issued a written decision containing extensive findings of fact and
  conclusions of law.  The court's decision awarded primary physical rights
  and responsibilities to mother, noting her plan to open a daycare facility
  that would allow her to care for the parties' child during the workday
  while still earning an income.  The court's order also established a
  parent-child contact schedule that allowed father to spend weekdays with
  the child between the hours of 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. in addition to three
  weekends each month, three weeks in the summer, and alternating holidays. 
  The court awarded the parties joint legal rights and responsibilities,
  i.e., the ability to participate in important aspects of the child's
  upbringing such as "education, medical and dental care, religion and travel
  arrangements."  15 V.S.A. § 664(1)(A).  In settling upon these
  arrangements, the court considered "the best interests of the child"
  factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665.
   
       ¶  3.  Mother and father both appealed various aspects of the family
  court's initial order.  In considering that appeal, a three member panel of
  this Court noted that "[i]t is not clear . . . whether § 665 applies to
  actions under the Parentage Proceedings Act, 15 V.S.A. §§ 301-308." 
  Heffernan v. Harbeson, Docket No. 2002-297 (Vt. May 7, 2003), at 2 
  (unpublished mem.).  We noted that the PPA merely provided that "[i]n an
  action under this subchapter, the court may determine parentage and may
  include in its order provision[s] relating to the obligations of parentage,
  including future child support, visitation and custody," but provided no
  standards to guide the courts in making determinations concerning
  "obligations of parentage."  Id. (quoting 15 V.S.A. § 306).  By contrast,
  15 V.S.A. § 665(a), which applies to the assignment of parental rights and
  responsibilities in marital dissolution cases, provides that "[w]hen the
  parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and
  responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and
  responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent."  Because the parents
  in this case could not agree on the proper division or sharing of parental
  rights and responsibilities, we remanded to the family court to determine
  whether § 665(a)'s prohibition of shared rights and responsibilities
  applied here, in the absence of parental agreement.  Id.

       ¶  4.  On remand, and after briefing from both parties, the family
  court concluded that § 306 and § 665(a) must be read in pari materia
  because the statutes concerned the same subject matter: child custody.  See
  In re Cottrell, 158 Vt. 500, 504, 614 A.2d 381, 383 (1992) (stating that
  the Court determines legislative intent by reference to the entire
  statutory scheme, and in so doing the Court reads statutes in pari
  materia).  As a result, the family court amended its order, assigning sole
  legal custody to mother in compliance with the court's understanding of §
  665(a).  In awarding sole physical and legal custody to mother, pursuant to
  15 V.S.A. § 665(d), the court required  mother to notify father whenever
  there is a major change in the child's welfare.    

       ¶  5.  Father appeals the family court order claiming error in the
  conclusion that § 665(a) applies in parentage actions.  Father argues that
  this conclusion is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutes as
  written.  In his view, the court's authority to "order provisions relating
  to the obligations of parentage, including future child support, visitation
  and custody," 15 V.S.A. § 306, is undefined and unrestricted because the
  PPA contains no standards to guide the courts in parentage cases.  Further,
  father argues that § 665(a)'s application is limited, by its language, to
  custody disputes arising from annulment and divorce.  Accordingly, he
  argues that the court's original order assigning joint legal custody to
  mother and father should not have been disturbed on remand.  
   
       ¶  6.  We cannot agree that the Legislature intended to create a
  detailed, mandatory set of guidelines for our courts to apply only when
  resolving custody disputes in divorce and other dissolution proceedings,
  while giving the courts unfettered discretion to resolve the same issues
  between unwed parents.  Accordingly, we affirm.

       ¶  7.  Whether the family court properly construed the controlling
  statutes is a question of law that we review de novo.  Office of Child
  Support v. Sholan, 172 Vt. 619, 620,