Title: Ihinger v. Ihinger

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Ihinger v. Ihinger (2001-236); 175 Vt. 520; 824 A.2d 601

2003 VT 38

[Filed 01-Apr-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 38

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-236

                               JUNE TERM, 2002

  Melissa Ann McGuire Ihinger	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Addison Family Court
                                       }	
  Eddie L. Ihinger, Jr.	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 215-11-93 Andm

                                                Trial Judge:  Edward J. Cashman

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Melissa and Eddie Ihinger's three children appeal a decision
  by the Addison Family Court vacating a temporary order transferring custody
  of the children from Melissa to the children's maternal grandmother,
  Alberta Wedge.  We conclude that the children do not have standing to
  appeal the family court's order, and therefore dismiss the appeal. (FN1) 

       ¶  2.  Melissa and Eddie Ihinger were granted a divorce in Vermont
  in 1995.  Since 1986, their relationship has been characterized by cycles
  of estrangement and reconciliation.  At various times during the parties'
  relationship, Melissa and the children have resided with Wedge in Vermont,
  and later in North Carolina.  The record reflects that Wedge has played an
  important caretaking role in the lives of her grandchildren, and that she
  has voiced concern over Melissa and Eddie's lack of stability.  

       ¶  3.  In January 2001, Melissa and Wedge stipulated to transfer
  custody of the children to Wedge, alleging Melissa and Eddie's
  unpredictable and cyclical relationship had been harmful to the children. 
  The family court entered an order temporarily granting legal and physical
  custody of the children to Wedge in North Carolina.  The court also
  appointed a guardian ad litem and an attorney to represent the children's
  best interests.  In March, 2001, Eddie filed a motion to dissolve the
  temporary custody order.  By the time the court heard Eddie's motion, he
  and Melissa had reconciled, and they both expressed a desire to regain
  custody of their children.  
        
       ¶  4.  In an April 2001 decision, the family court concluded that it
  did not have jurisdiction to entertain Wedge's motion to modify parental
  rights and responsibilities.  It rejected Wedge's argument that her past
  custody of the children gave her party status in the proceeding equal to
  that of Melissa and Eddie.  The court therefore dismissed Wedge's motion to
  modify, 'dissolved' the January 2001 temporary custody order, and returned
  sole physical and legal custody of the children to their mother, Melissa. 
  Through their court-appointed counsel, the children appealed to this Court.  

       ¶  5.  The children's principal claim on appeal concerns Wedge's
  standing to seek modification of the order granting Melissa custody.  We
  note that Wedge did not file a notice of appeal, nor has she filed a brief
  supporting the arguments the children advance in this Court.  Melissa
  opposes her children's appeal, and argues that we lack jurisdiction over
  this matter because the children were not parties to the divorce proceeding
  below, and therefore they have no standing to appeal the family court's
  order. (FN2)  The children have not articulated a basis for this Court's
  jurisdiction or otherwise responded to their mother's jurisdictional
  argument.  Because standing is a jurisdictional issue, we must first
  determine the merits of Melissa's threshold argument.  Cooperative Fire
  Ins. Ass'n of Vt. v. Bizon, 166 Vt. 326, 330 n.3,