Case Title: Pigeon v. Pigeon

Citation: 173 Vt. 464, 782 A.2d 1236

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Pigeon v. Pigeon (2000-333); 173 Vt. 464; 782 A.2d 1236

[Filed 26-Sept-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-333

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

Allen E. Pigeon	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Franklin Family Court
                                       }	
                                       }
Jill M. Pigeon	                       }	DOCKET NO. 246-8-91 Frdm

                                                Trial Judge: Ben W. Joseph

             In the above entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Father appeals from an order of the Franklin Family Court modifying
  parental rights and  responsibilities by transferring sole legal custody to
  mother and reducing father's weekend parent-child contact.  Father
  contends: (1) the record does not support the court's custody award; (2)
  there  was no showing of a real, substantial and unanticipated change of
  circumstances warranting  modification of father's weekend contact with the
  child; and (3) reducing father's weekend contact  with the child was not in
  the child's best interests.  Because the court made no findings to support
  its  decision to award mother sole legal parental rights and
  responsibilities, the court's finding regarding  changed circumstances
  warranting modification of the parent-child contact schedule was clearly 
  erroneous.  In addition, the court failed to indicate it considered the
  child's best interests when  modifying the award of parental rights and
  responsibilities or the contact schedule.  We therefore  reverse and
  remand.

       Mother and father divorced in 1992 and shared joint legal rights and
  responsibilities for their  one child, Zachary, born in 1990.  In 1996,
  when the child was five years old, the parties stipulated to  an amendment
  to the final order, "to minimize the disruption to Zachary's schedule
  during the school  year," which increased father's contact with the child. 
  After the parties experienced some  disagreements about the child's medical
  treatment and a dispute about a holiday visit, father filed a  motion to
  enforce the amended final order.  On the day of the enforcement hearing,
  mother filed a  motion to amend the final divorce order and amended order. 
  In her motion, mother requested that  the court choose one parent to be
  solely responsible for making medical decisions.  Mother did not  request
  any other change to the shared legal rights and responsibilities order. 
  Mother also argued  that the parent-child contact schedule should be
  clarified and modified "to minimize further  problems in regard to
  parent-child contact schedule."  The court granted mother's motion to
  modify  and awarded her sole legal rights and responsibilities.  Father
  appeals the modification decision.

       Father first contends the court erred in transferring sole legal
  rights and responsibilities to  mother.  Father claims there were no
  findings regarding whether the transfer of sole legal rights and 

 

  responsibilities to mother would be in the best interests of the child.  He
  argues that, other than issues  regarding the child's medical condition,
  there was no evidence regarding the remaining bundle of  legal rights and
  responsibilities included in 15 V.S.A. § 664(1)(A).  Father also contends
  that there  were no findings or evidence on whether or how the court's
  award of medical decisionmaking  authority to mother was in the child's
  best interests.  

       Father is correct.  Regarding legal rights and responsibilities, the
  court made the following  findings:  "The parties have had disputes
  concerning medical care for Zachary who suffers from  allergies.  The
  parties cannot cooperate in making decisions about Zachary's medical care. 
  Mediation  between the parties is futile because they cannot deal with each
  other."  The court concluded that  "[t]he parties are not able to share
  legal responsibility for the child."  The court made no reference to  its
  consideration of the best interests factors or that its decision is in the
  child's best interests.  See  Shea v. Metcalf, 167 Vt. 494, 499, 712 A.2d 887, 890 (1998) (the broad discretion of the family  court to fashion
  parental rights and responsibilities orders is limited to those that serve
  the child's  best interests).  The court also failed to explain what
  factors made mother the better parent to make  medical decisions on behalf
  of Zachary.  The family court has left us with no way to determine  whether
  or how it applied the best interests factors, or how it reached its
  conclusion to award mother  sole legal rights and responsibilities.  See
  Nickerson v. Nickerson, 158 Vt. 85, 88-89, 605 A.2d 1331,  1333 (1992)
  (conclusions of law must be supported by findings of fact and an
  explanation of how the  court reached its decision). 

       Father next claims that the court erred in concluding that there had
  been a real, substantial  and unanticipated change of circumstances to
  justify a modification of his parent-child contact  schedule.  See 15
  V.S.A. §§ 664, 668.  The court made the following findings on changed 
  circumstances: the child "is now 10 years old, in school, involved in
  after-school activities, and not at  home for most of the time on week days
  during the school year" and "[u]nder the terms of the Final  Order, the
  defendant never spends an entire weekend with [the child] during the school
  year."  The  court concluded that there had been a real, substantial and
  unanticipated change of circumstances  because the child's school schedule
  did not permit him to spend substantial amounts of time with his  mother on
  weekdays during the school year.  It noted that the current order had been
  entered when  the child was an infant and at home with his mother all the
  time on weekdays. 

       In deBeaumont v. Goodrich, 162 Vt. 91, 97,