Title: Shea v. Metcalf

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Shea v. Metcalf  (97-015); 167 Vt. 494; 712 A.2d 887

[Filed 3-Apr-1998]

       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. 97-015

Charles Thomas Shea                          Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Addison Family Court

Mary Oliver Metcalf                          September Term, 1997

Matthew I. Katz, J.

Lucy T. Brown and Dennis R. Pearson of Gravel and Shea, and Lindsey M.
  Huddle, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Susan M. Murray of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Mary Metcalf appeals an Addison Family Court divorce
  order in which legal rights and responsibilities for her two minor children
  were divided between herself and her former husband, Charles Shea.  The
  family court granted legal responsibility for decisions concerning the
  children's medical care and education to father, and legal responsibility
  for all other matters to mother.  Mother contends that (1) the family
  court's order divides legal rights and responsibilities in a manner not
  permitted under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), and (2) even if the statute authorizes
  such division, the family court abused its discretion in ordering the
  division and not awarding all legal rights and responsibilities to her.  We
  affirm.

       The parties were married in Vermont in 1988 and have two children,
  aged seven and five at the time of final hearing before the family court. 
  Early in their marriage, the parties researched and discussed different
  approaches to parenting in such areas as the duration of nursing, whether
  the children should sleep with their parents in a "family bed" or in their
  own rooms, whether the children should be immunized, and whether they
  should attend public school

 

  or be home schooled.  Mother's research led her to believe that the health
  risks associated with immunizing children against infectious diseases such
  as diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, measles and mumps outweighed the
  benefits.  The parties thus agreed to forego immunizing their children.(FN1) 
  Although father initially agreed to this decision, he later developed
  misgivings and changed his mind.

       The parties also decided to educate their children at home, with
  instruction and supervision provided by mother, rather than send them to
  public school.  Father initially agreed to this decision, but after the
  eldest child had been home schooled for approximately two years, changed
  his mind and decided that the children's needs would be better served by
  attending public school.

       In seeking a divorce, the parties were able to settle all issues
  relating to spousal and child support and property division.  The parties
  also agreed that mother would continue as the primary custodian with
  primary physical responsibilities for the two children.  The sole dispute
  before the family court centered on assignment of legal rights and
  responsibilities for the children.  Father sought sole legal rights and
  responsibilities over decisions concerning the children's medical care and
  education.  Mother sought legal rights and responsibilities for all
  matters.  The central area of dispute concerning legal custody was the
  parties' differences over medical and educational decisions for the
  children.

       The family court heard testimony from the parties and several medical
  and education experts.  From its consideration of testimony on childhood
  immunizations, the family court found that the prevailing medical regimen
  of childhood immunizations "is rational and represents the best-informed
  judgment" to protect the heath of the children.  The court also found that
  father was the parent most likely to make sound medical and health care
  decisions generally for the children, and accordingly, awarded legal rights
  and responsibilities for medical decisions to

 

  father.

       On educational matters, the court found that the parties' eldest son,
  who was at that time their only child of school age, had not been well
  served by home schooling with mother.  The court found that the child could
  not read even basic words despite the fact that he was of second grade age,
  and it was normal for children to begin reading at an earlier age.  The
  court also found that mother's home schooling was not affording the child
  enough interaction with peers. Because of mother's ineffective home
  schooling, and her insistence that she would continue to home school the
  children if given authority over the decision, the court awarded father
  legal rights and responsibilities for the children's educational decisions. 
  Mother appeals.

       Mother first argues that the family court was without statutory
  authority to divide legal rights and responsibilities between the two
  parents.  She acknowledges that 15 V.S.A. § 665(a) generally permits such
  division, but contends that when the parties cannot agree, the statute
  requires that all legal rights and responsibilities be awarded to one
  parent.

       When adjudicating the divorce of a couple with one or more minor
  children, the family court must assign parental rights and responsibilities
  for the child or children to one or both of the parents, or a suitable
  third party.  See 15 V.S.A. § 665(a).  Parental rights and responsibilities
  are defined as those "rights and responsibilities related to a child's
  physical living arrangements, parent child contact, education, medical and
  dental care, religion, travel, and any other matter involving a child's
  welfare and upbringing."  Id. § 664(1).  Rights and responsibilities are
  comprised of "physical responsibility," and "legal responsibility," which
  is defined as "the rights and responsibilities to determine and control
  various matters affecting a child's welfare . . . includ[ing] but . . . not
  limited to education, medical and dental care, religion and travel
  arrangements."  Id. § 664(1)(A).  The family court may "order parental
  rights and responsibilities to be divided or shared between parents on such
  terms and conditions as serve the best interests of the child."  Id. §
  665(a) (emphasis added).  Mother argues that the family court's order
  violates the statute's requirement that "[w]hen the parents cannot agree to

 

  divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award
  parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." 
  Id. § 665(a) (emphasis added).

       Our paramount goal in statutory construction is to give effect  to the
  Legislature's intent. See Burlington Elec. Dep't. v. Vt. Dep't of Taxes,
  154 Vt. 332, 335, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990).  We apply the plain meaning of
  a statute where the language is clear and unambiguous, see Conn v.
  Middlebury Union High School Dist. No 3, 162 Vt. 498, 501,