Title: deBeaumont v. Goodrich

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

DEBEAUMONT_V_GOODRICH.92-586; 162 Vt. 91; 644 A.2d 843

[Opinion Filed May 27, 1994]


 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. 92-586


 Gail (Goodrich) deBeaumont                   Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Orange Family Court

 Mark D. Goodrich                             September Term, 1993


 Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

 Norman R. Blais, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant

 Peter F. Welch of Welch Graham & Manby, White River Junction, for
   defendant-appellee

 Charlene R. Bohl, Chelsea, for children


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   This is an appeal taken by plaintiff-mother Gail
 deBeaumont from a modification order of the Orange Family Court that shifted
 parental rights and responsibilities of the parties' children from Ms.
 deBeaumont to the defendant-father, Mark Goodrich.  We affirm.
      The parties were married for eight years before separating in 1990 and
 divorcing in August 1991.  They had two children during their years
 together:  Stephen, born in December 1985, and Molly, born in May 1988.
 Prior to separation, the mother provided care during the day for the
 children while the father worked, and both parents shared caregiving
 responsibilities during evening and weekend hours.  After the separation,
 the mother returned to culinary school and worked periodically, with the

 

 parties splitting care.  The children also continued to visit their paternal
 grandparents two to three times a week as they had been doing since birth.
      Upon divorce, the mother was granted sole legal and physical
 responsibility for the children.  The father was granted parent-child
 contact that allowed him to have the children for three days each week.
 This arrangement permitted continuation of the parties' practice of co-
 parenting.  As part of the final decree, the court included a paragraph
 drafted by the parties stating:  "If either party moves more than fifty (50)
 miles from their current homes in Thetford and Norwich, it shall constitute
 a change in circumstances so the Court may reconsider existing parental
 responsibilities and visitation."
      On January 25, 1992, the mother chose to leave her home in Thetford and
 move to Milford, Pennsylvania, to join her companion, John Diefenbach.  She
 consulted her attorney before doing so and was told that a move with the
 children would lead only to a reopening of parental-child contact issues,
 not a redetermination of all parental rights and responsibilities matters.
 Thereafter, the mother picked the children up from the father's home, and
 informed him for the first time that she and the children were leaving the
 state.  She had not told the children they were moving to Pennsylvania, nor
 did she tell her son's school that she was taking him out of state.  The
 mother refused to give the father the children's mail address or telephone
 number for a week after the move and continued to refuse to give him her
 street address.
      In response to a February 5 order of the family court, the children
 were returned to Vermont in early March.  On March 25, the family court
 awarded the father temporary parental rights and responsibilities and gave
 the mother parent-child contact every weekend and Easter vacation.  For

 

 purposes of assessing parental care, the court required a family evaluation.
 This evaluation was performed in May by Dr. Donald Hillman, who found that
 the children did not perceive either parent as the primary caretaker;
 rather, they considered both equally caring and committed.  On August 24,
 1992, the family court modified its earlier order and granted sole legal and
 physical responsibility to the father, subject to parent-child contact with
 the mother.
      On appeal, the mother argues that the family court's decision to modify
 should be reversed because the court's findings were insufficient to warrant
 the modification, that the modification violated the teachings of Lane v.
 Schenck, 158 Vt. 489, 614 A.2d 786 (1992), and that it was error for the
 court to adopt many of the findings of the family evaluator but reach a
 conclusion contrary to the evaluator's recommendation.
      In order to modify a custody determination, a moving party must
 traverse two hurdles.  First, the moving party must make "a showing of real,
 substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances."  15 V.S.A. { 668.
 Once that threshold is met, the moving party must then show that annulling,
 varying or modifying a prior parental rights and responsibilities
 determination is in the best interests of the child.(FN1) Id.; see Kilduff v.
 Willey, 150 Vt. 552, 553,