Title: Marvell v. Nichelson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Marvell v. Nichelson (2002-054); 174 Vt. 601; 816 A.2d 527

[Filed 09-Dec-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-054

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  Doreen Marvell	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Family Court
                                       }	
  Jeffrey L. Nichelson	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 395-5-01 Cndm

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is an appeal by father from an order of the family court granting
  custody of son, Coyote, to mother in a parentage action filed by her. 
  Father claims on appeal that the trial court made findings that were not
  supported by the evidence, preferred mother over father for financial
  reasons, failed to consider Coyote's future life in Oregon with mother
  compared with life in Vermont with father, focused on the best interests of
  the mother rather than Coyote, and improperly applied a preference for
  mother on the basis of gender.  We affirm.

       The trial court found the following facts.  The parties lived together
  for many years, but they were never married.  Their son, Coyote, was born
  in 1993.  In October, 2000, they separated and thereafter had a contentious
  relationship with respect to their son, especially concerning visitation. 
  Mother filed the parentage action in May 2001 to settle paternity, which
  father has always acknowledged, as well as custody and visitation.  Father
  also asked for custody. 

       During the course of the relationship, mother worked as a teacher,
  while father worked in a number of part-time jobs.  Mother took care of
  Coyote for the first seven months of his life, after which she returned to
  her work.  Despite working full-time, mother handled the large majority of
  household work - shopping for food and clothes, housework, and cooking
  meals.  Mother also took care of birthday and Christmas presents and
  holiday costumes.  The trial court found that mother has been more
  sensitive to Coyote's needs following the separation and in seeking to
  resolve problems when they have arisen at school.  
   
       Father cared for Coyote until he went to nursery school at two years
  old.  The trial court found that working part-time was more a matter of
  father's preference than it was a requirement for handling his child-care
  responsibilities.  Father has also played a very supportive role in
  Coyote's 

 

  education and was active in a private school that Coyote attended, serving
  on the Board of Directors of the school. 

       During the course of the separation, mother decided to move to Oregon
  and obtained a higher paying teaching job there.  She also intended to
  participate in a family business that her brother and family members had
  begun in Oregon.  As a result of her improved financial circumstances, she
  expected to be able to own her own home in Oregon.  The court found that
  mother's move was based upon sound, practical reasons and that Coyote's
  long term interests were best served by accompanying his mother to Oregon. 

       Neither party was found to be the primary caretaker and the evidence
  was relatively equal with respect to both parties.  Each party had some
  negatives, but the court found that each parent has a close and loving
  relationship with Coyote; that each has an equal ability to continue to
  provide Coyote with love, affection and guidance, adequate food and
  clothing and a safe environment; and that each has the ability to meet
  Coyote's future needs.  However the court found that mother offered greater
  stability than father.  She has achieved a stable career, in contrast to
  father.  The court concluded that mother had a more generous nature, and
  had demonstrated more of a propensity for stability and commitment which
  would better serve Coyote's interests in the long run.  The court was also
  concerned about illegal drug use by father, at least in the past, some of
  which took place in front of Coyote, and father's loss of his driver's
  license because of speeding tickets.    

       The standard of review in custody cases is deferential.  We will not
  disturb the trial court's custodial order unless the court abused its
  discretion or failed to exercise it.  Myott v. Myott, 149 Vt. 573, 578,