Case Title: Spaulding v. Butler

Citation: 172 Vt. 467, 782 A.2d 1167

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Spaulding v. Butler  (99-164); 172 Vt. 467; 782 A.2d 1167

[Filed 31-August-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. 99-164

Jon K. Spaulding	                      Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
     v.	                                      Rutland Family Court

Michele Butler	                              March Term, 2000

Mary Miles Teachout, J.

Norman R. Blais, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregg Meyer, Rutland, and Karen L. Richards, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., 
  Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.  Michele Butler (mother) appeals from a Rutland Family
  Court order  granting Jon Spaulding's (father) motion to modify parental
  rights and responsibilities, and awarding  sole legal and physical parental
  rights and responsibilities of the parties' son, Nathan, to father, and 
  visitation to mother.  Mother argues that the court erred in finding that a
  real, substantial and  unanticipated change of circumstances had occurred,
  see 15 V.S.A. § 668, and in concluding that  awarding custody to father was
  in Nathan's best interests, see id.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, 
  and remand.

  

                                     I.

       The trial court found the following facts.(FN1)   Mother has a child,
  Michael, from a  previous relationship with a man named Pero.  Michael is
  developmentally delayed.  Mother's  relationship with Pero ended when
  mother obtained a relief-from-abuse order against him.  Father  was
  previously married.  When this marriage ended, his ex-wife obtained a
  relief-from-abuse order  against father, which was later amended to include
  a restraining order against father.

       Mother and father met in January 1993.  One month later, when Michael
  was approximately  two years old, mother and Michael moved in with father. 
  Mother became pregnant with the parties'  child, Nathan.  However, the
  relationship was problematic. According to the court, father has a  temper,
  which revealed itself in violent ways, e.g. when scratched by Michael's
  cat, he got angry and  shot and killed the cat.  In May 1993, mother called
  some friends to come and help her leave the  home.  While on the phone with
  mother, the friends heard father "raging in the background and  threatening
  them with a bullet if they came."  Father  threw mother's belongings out of
  the house "in  a rage."  After two weeks, father convinced mother to
  return, which she did, but only briefly.  She  eventually left and obtained
  a relief-from-abuse order against father on the grounds that he had  abused
  both her and Michael, including beating him with a belt.  At the hearing
  resulting in the order  presently on appeal, father testified that the
  parties never argued and that he could not understand  why mother left him. 
  The court found that father "was not credible in his testimony" and that
  "Mr.  Spaulding physically abused Michael, and was threatening to Ms.
  Butler and placed her in fear of  imminent serious physical abuse." 

  

       Nathan was born on December 7, 1993.  Father filed a parentage case,
  seeking to establish  parentage and parental rights and responsibilities
  with respect to Nathan.  In January 1994, mother  was awarded temporary
  sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities. Father was denied 
  visitation.  At mother's request, the court also amended the June 1993
  relief-from-abuse order to  include a no-stalking provision.  In March
  1994, father obtained an order providing for visitation.

       In the spring of 1994, father entered into a relationship with his
  present wife, Penelope, who  became actively involved in issues concerning
  Nathan.  She took over arranging father's visits with  Nathan and wrote
  letters to mother telling her how she should be taking care of Nathan.  The
  court  found that Penelope's involvement interfered in father and mother's
  ability to communicate directly  over Nathan. 

       In June 1994, at mother's request, the court  renewed the provisions
  of the June 1993 relief-from-abuse order, including the no-stalking
  provision. 

       In July 1994, mother began therapy with Meredith McCartney of
  Community Mental Health  Center, to get help coping with Michael's special
  needs.  This therapy continued, on a regular basis,  for approximately a
  year.  In this regard, the court found mother to be a concerned parent,
  willing to  take advantage of available resources, but somewhat
  "overwhelmed by powerful forces around her."  It is not clear what powerful
  forces the court was referring to.  Mother brought both boys to the 
  sessions and "[i]n Ms. McCartney's presence, [mother] was able to use
  appropriate parenting  methods in managing the two children.  Nonetheless,
  Michael took up so much of her attention, due  to his special needs, that
  Nathan received less attention." 	

       In September 1994, the court issued a final order granting sole legal
  and physical parental  rights and responsibilities of ten-month-old Nathan
  to mother, and unsupervised visitation to father.  

  

  Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the court deleted the no-stalking
  provisions of the June 1994  relief-from-abuse order.

       Over the next year, the Spauldings, father and Penelope, began taking
  pictures of Nathan to  document when he arrived for a scheduled visit dirty
  or bruised.  At some point during this period,  testing showed that Nathan
  began to be developmentally delayed.	

       During a visit in August 1995, father noticed that Nathan had a bad
  diaper rash.  Mother had  been aware of the rash and used an
  over-the-counter ointment to treat it. When that failed, she sought  help
  from a doctor who prescribed a prescription ointment.  Father took Nathan
  to the hospital and  was given an ointment that began to clear up the rash.
  The following weekend, father noticed, the  rash was bad again.  This
  pattern persisted.   The court found that mother had "pursued appropriate 
  care for treatment of the rash, but that she was not able to follow through
  consistently in order to  clear up the rash, and that as a result, Nathan
  repeatedly suffered a severe and painful rash that was  preventable."

       In August of 1996, Nathan was tested for lead poisoning and found to
  have unacceptable  levels of lead in his blood.  At the hearing, mother
  testified that she was later contacted and told that  there was an error in
  the test.  The court made no finding on this issue, stating:  "There is no 
  indication one way or another whether it is accurate that there was an
  error."  In September 1996,  mother, Nathan and Michael returned to weekly
  therapy with Ms. McCartney because the boys were  biting each other on a
  regular basis. 

       In April 1997, during a visit, father found marks on Nathan's body
  where Michael had bitten  him, and took Nathan to the hospital. The court
  found that father "was dishonest about Nathan's  custody status," telling
  hospital personnel that he had custody of Nathan.  The hospital reported
  the 

  

  marks to SRS.  Father filed a relief-from-abuse petition in which he
  requested transfer of custody to  himself.  After hearing, the court found
  abuse based on mother's failure to prevent Michael from  hurting Nathan and
  issued a relief-from-abuse order transferring custody to father and
  providing for  mother to have supervised visits with Nathan for four hours
  a week.  Father then filed the motion to  modify the parentage order
  presently at issue.  In the order now on appeal, the court found that 
  mother had been aware of and concerned about the bite marks and had shown
  them to a public health  worker at a clinic.  In August 1997, SRS completed
  its investigation of the bite marks and found  father's allegations of
  abuse unsubstantiated.  In September 1997, the parties stipulated to 
  unsupervised visits between mother and Nathan for three weekends a month,
  and to a professional  evaluation of mother's interactions with Nathan.

       On October 14, 1997, Nathan came back from a visit with mother with
  marks on his body;   mother told father the marks were cold sores.  Father
  took Nathan to the hospital where it was  determined that the marks were
  cigarette burns, and a report was made to SRS.  The following week,  father
  learned that Nathan had fallen out of a second-story window during a visit
  with mother.  At  that time, mother determined that Nathan was fine and did
  not seek medical care.  Father reported the  fall to SRS and filed a motion
  to stop visits.  In November 1997, the court issued an order  terminating
  Nathan's visits with mother pending SRS's investigations of the marks on
  Nathan's body  and of his fall.

       In the meantime, Dr. Peter Aines, a psychologist had begun evaluating
  mother, pursuant to  the parties' September 1997 stipulation.  He requested
  supervised visits so he could observe mother  and Nathan interacting.  A
  guardian ad litem also supported resumption of visits.  However, because 
  the parties could not agree on the arrangements for supervised visits,
  mother did not visit Nathan for 

  

  several months.  The court found

       that a contributing factor was that Ms. Butler, who is a
       person who  tends to be overpowered by others and can be
       overwhelmed by the  needs of her other child Michael, was
       unrepresented and was being  presented with proposals from
       Mr. Spaulding's attorney that she not  have any contact at
       all with Nathan until he was ten.  Ms. Butler did  not pursue
       seeing Nathan as actively as she might, but she was also 
       dealing with some fairly strong forces working against her. 
       She did  not have the ability or strength to overcome those
       forces and maintain  a relationship with Nathan, even though
       she was being urged on by  the evaluator and GAL.

       In March 1998, SRS attempted to investigate an allegation that Nathan
  and another child had  been showing each other their private parts in the
  home of a friend of the Spauldings.  Father refused  to allow SRS to
  investigate.  According to the court:  "The lack of cooperation suggests
  that [father]  is willing to use the SRS reporting mechanism for his own
  benefit to build a record of abuse of  Nathan against Ms. Butler, but he is
  not open and cooperative when there is any suggestion  involving possible
  claims of abuse connected with his own household."

       In June 1998, after six months without a visit between mother and
  Nathan, supervised visits  were reinstated, the first visit taking place in
  the evaluator's office.  While acknowledging that it  would be hard for
  Nathan to reestablish a relationship with his mother after not seeing her
  for so  long, the court found that Nathan's response to this first visit
  was "beyond what is reasonable to  expect" in that he avoided his mother
  and played only with the evaluator.  The court noted that "Mr.  Spaulding,
  with very active involvement on the part of Penelope, has engaged in a LONG
  TERM  PERSISTENT CAMPAIGN TO CUT OFF ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATHAN AND
  MS. BUTLER."  (emphasis added).

       Nathan began to show a lack of desire to go on visits.  According to
  the court, this was 

       not surprising for several reasons.  For one thing, he
       had had  extremely limited contact with his mother over the
       previous seven or

  

       eight months.  In addition, his experience with supervised
       visits  included the experience of having the Spauldings
       remain on the  premises, with Mr. Spaulding and/or Penelope
       and some of the  Spaulding children walking around and
       observing what was going on,  while he was visiting with Mrs.
       Butler. . . .  Third, the testimony as a  whole in this case,
       and the evaluation of the demeanor of the  witnesses, leads
       the Court to find that THE SPAULDINGS HAD ENGAGED IN  A
       CAMPAIGN OF PRESENTING MS. BUTLER TO NATHAN IN A VERY
       NEGATIVE  LIGHT.  Rather than encouraging a constructive
       relationship, they  presented her to him as a person who
       represented potential abuse to  him. 

  (emphasis added).	

       On July 2, 1998, SRS completed its investigation into the cigarette
  burns and found father's  allegations of abuse unsubstantiated.  Initially
  SRS did substantiate abuse by mother for failing to  protect Nathan with
  respect to his fall from the window.  However, in December 1998, SRS
  reversed  itself and determined that insufficient information existed to
  substantiate allegations of abuse.

       In August 1998, father and Penelope got into an argument during which
  father lost his  temper, slapped Penelope in the face and engaged in other
  threatening behavior.  Penelope called the  police, who came and defused
  the situation.  When the police went inside to speak with Penelope,  they
  found Nathan lying in a fetal position.  Two days later, the Spauldings
  filed a new relief-from-abuse petition against mother, based on the same
  allegations as the previous petitions and including a  new allegation that
  Nathan had reported seeing mother and a man engaged in sexually suggestive 
  dancing.  Visitation was suspended.  After a hearing on the petition, it
  was dismissed, at which time  father became angry and had to be restrained. 
  The court also issued a temporary order providing for  visitation between
  mother and Nathan.

       The alleged dancing incident was reported to SRS.  SRS and the police
  decided to interview  Nathan about the incident together, and instructed
  father and Penelope not to talk with Nathan about 

  

  the interview.  The Spauldings apparently did not comply.  According to the
  court:

       The police investigator noted that Nathan used words to
       describe the  incident that he did not understand.  For
       example, he talked about  breasts but he could not show what
       breasts were on an anatomically  correct doll.  The police
       found it difficult to determine the extent to  which Nathan
       at age four and one half was accurately reporting  anything
       that might have happened a year to eighteen months earlier. 
       Nathan was able to demonstrate using anatomically correct
       dolls a  sexy kind of dancing between the dolls.  It appears
       that he must have  seen something of that nature somewhere. 
       It is not clear where he  saw it.  Mr. Spaulding has in the
       past watched 'dirty movies' in his  home. Penelope is a very
       religious person and does not do so. At the  time this issue
       arose, Nathan had no unsupervised contact with Ms.  Butler
       for over a year and a half.  

  At the time the court issued its final order on father's motion to modify,
  the police investigation  remained unresolved, and the results of SRS's
  investigation had not been received.	

       On October 31, 1998, the evaluator attended his second visit between
  mother and Nathan.   By this time the relationship had deteriorated-Nathan
  refused to interact with mother. In February 1999, the court granted
  father's motion to modify, and awarded father sole  parental rights and
  responsibilities over Nathan and mother supervised visitation for six
  months,  transitioning to unsupervised visitation.  The court ordered
  father to pay the costs of any supervised  visitation because it found that
  he was "PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SERIOUS DISRUPTIONS IN THE 
  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MS. BUTLER AND NATHAN, including the long-term
  disruption of visitation."   (emphasis added).  Mother moved for
  reconsideration, which the court denied.

       Mother appeals from the final order and from the denial of her motion
  to reconsider.

                                     II.

       "[W]hen reviewing the factual findings of a trial court we view them
  in the light most  favorable to the prevailing party below, disregarding
  the effect of any modifying evidence, and we

  

  will not set aside the findings unless they are clearly erroneous." 
  Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt. 547,  548,