Title: Sochin v. Sochin

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Sochin v. Sochin  (2004-271); 178 Vt. 535; 872 A.2d 373

2005 VT 36

[23-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 36

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-271

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

  Gregory Sochin                     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
       v.                            }     Windham Family Court
                                     }     
  Lea Ann Sochin                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 2-1-02 Wmdm

                                           Trial Judge: Katherine A. Hayes

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

       ¶ 1.     Mother appeals a Windham Family Court decision denying her
  motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities so that she could
  relocate to Florida with the parties' minor child.  Because it is
  undisputed that mother's proposed relocation is a "real, substantial and
  unanticipated change of circumstances," 15 V.S.A. § 668, this case turns on
  a determination of the best interests of the child.  The family court's
  evaluation of the factors contained in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) is supported by
  the record, and, therefore, we will not disturb the court's conclusion that
  it is in the child's best interests to remain with father in Vermont. 
  Accordingly, we affirm the court's decision to award primary legal and
  physical parental rights and responsibilities to father.

       ¶ 2.     The parties were married in 1991, and have one child,
  Demetri, who was born in September 1998.  Following their separation, the
  parties entered into an interim stipulation, filed with the family court in
  March 2002, providing for a shared custodial arrangement-Demetri would
  spend from 8:00 a.m. Thursday morning until noon on Sunday with father and
  from noon on Sunday until Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. with mother, with
  alternating custody on Wednesdays from 4:30 p.m. until Thursday morning. 
  The parties have followed that contact schedule since the filing of the
  interim stipulation, and in fact began splitting Demetri's time between
  them roughly in half in March 2001 when the divorce action was filed. 

        
       ¶ 3.     The court issued a final divorce order in April 2003,
  awarding mother sole physical and legal parental rights and
  responsibilities, while maintaining the contact schedule from the interim
  stipulation.  Mother appealed, and, while that appeal was pending, she
  moved in family court to modify the shared parent-child contact schedule to
  enable her to move to Florida to live for part of the year with her fiancé,
  who is employed principally in that state.  Father opposed the motion and
  cross-moved for sole parental rights and responsibilities.  Following a
  hearing, the court issued the decision currently on appeal, concluding that
  mother's planned move constituted a real, substantial, and unanticipated
  change of circumstances, and that the child's best interests required an
  award of primary parental rights and responsibilities to father, and
  substantial parent contact with mother during summers and holidays.   For
  the reasons that follow, we now affirm.

       ¶ 4.     The family court enjoys broad discretion in determining
  custody, and we accept its findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 
  Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt. 50, 52-53,