Title: Porcaro v. Drop

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Porcaro v. Drop (2001-177); 175 Vt. 13; 816 A.2d 1280

[Filed 27-Dec-2002]

       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. 2001-177

  Melissa Porcaro	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Rutland Family Court

  Mark Francis Drop	                         January Term, 2002 

  William D. Cohen, J.

  David Putter and Cassandra Edson of Putter & Edson, LLP, Montpelier, and
    Thaddeus Lorentz of Lorentz, Lorentz & Harnett, Rutland, for 
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Eugene Rakow of Biederman & Rakow, P.C., Rutland, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       ¶ 1.  SKOGLUND, J.    Mother appeals from a family court order
  awarding custody of the parties' minor child to father.  Mother's claims of
  error consist of two basic contentions: (1) the court erred in failing to
  find that mother was the child's primary care provider, and to accord that
  fact sufficient weight and deference in its decision; and (2) the court
  impermissibly relied on mother's relocation out of state in its decision. 
  We affirm.     
   
       ¶ 2.  Although never married, the parties lived together for
  several years in Rutland, and had a child, born in April 1996.  In May
  1999, the parties separated.  In October, they stipulated to a temporary
  court order awarding parental rights and responsibilities.  The order
  provided that mother would retain physical rights and responsibilities, and
  the parties would share legal custody.  

 

  Father was afforded substantial visitation, consisting of two weekdays, one
  overnight on weekends, and portions of holidays, vacations, and birthdays.    

       ¶ 3.  Although the parties reunited in December 1999, they separated
  again in March 2000, whereupon they reverted to the provisions of the
  temporary order.  Evidence showed, however, that father spent considerable
  time with the child beyond that specified in the order, including two days
  on weekends and other occasions when mother was unavailable.  Also at this
  time, mother became acquainted through the Internet with a man named Maco
  Stewart, who resides in Los Alamos, New Mexico.  In June, after two
  in-person meetings with Stewart in April and May, mother moved with the
  child to Stewart's residence in New Mexico.  Father thereupon filed a
  contempt motion for interference with visitation, and mother filed a motion
  to modify parent-child contact.
   
       ¶ 4.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the court issued a written
  decision in March 2001.  The court observed preliminarily that the October
  1999 order was designed to be temporary.  Therefore, the court defined its
  task as determining the custody placement that would serve the child's best
  interests, rather than whether there had been a substantial change of
  circumstances. (FN1)  The court proceeded to review the statutory factors set
  forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b).  The court found that both parties had the
  ability and disposition to provide the child with love, affection and
  guidance, to provide for the child's present and future developmental
  needs, and to foster a positive relationship with the non-custodial parent. 
  The court further found that mother "was the primary care giver during the
  child's first two years of life, although this has changed over time to
  become more equal."    As to the parties' ability to provide the child with
  a safe and stable environment, and the child's relationships with others
  who may affect him, the court found that the evidence favored 

 

  father.  The court noted that father had held the same job for over nine
  years, was well-settled in his life and home, and had a network of family
  and friends actively involved with the child.  The court further found that
  the child enjoyed good relationships with family and friends in the State
  of Vermont.  Mother, in contrast, had recently moved to New Mexico, without
  prior notice to father or to the child's school or friends, in order to
  pursue a relationship with a man she had met several months earlier on the
  Internet and with whom she had spent little time.  The man had recently
  moved out of his own marital home, and was in the process of obtaining a
  divorce.  Mother was not employed in her new home, had no family in New
  Mexico, and few friends.  The circumstances suggested, in the trial court's
  judgment, a lack of stability when compared with father, and supported the
  conclusion that father "can and will be better able to provide for [the
  child] on a daily basis in the future."  

       ¶ 5.  Based on these findings, the court concluded that the child's
  best interests would be served by awarding physical rights and
  responsibilities to father, and so ordered.  By agreement of the parties,
  the court ordered shared legal rights and responsibilities.  Mother was
  awarded substantial visitation, within the logistical limitations,
  including eight weeks during the summer, all of Christmas vacation, winter
  and spring vacations, and unlimited phone and e-mail contact.  This appeal
  followed.
   
       ¶ 6.  Mother's principal contention on appeal is that the trial
  court committed reversible error by failing to find that she was the
  primary care provider, and by further failing to accord that fact
  sufficient weight in its analysis.  Our review of the court's findings and
  conclusion is deferential.  "Given its unique position to assess the
  credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence, we will not set aside the
  [family] court's findings if supported by the evidence, nor its conclusions
  if supported 

 

  by the findings.  In determining the best interests of the children in
  custody matters, the court may draw upon its own common sense and
  experience in reaching a reasoned judgment."  Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt.
  50, 53,