Title: Mansfield v. Mansfield

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Mansfield v. Mansfield  (97-001); 167 Vt. 606; 708 A.2d 579

[Filed 10-Feb-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-001

                             DECEMBER TERM, 1997

Kurt Mansfield                     }    APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
     v.                            }    Rutland Family Court
                                   }
Jayne Mansfield                    }
                                   }    DOCKET NO. 186-4-93Rddm

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

       Plaintiff Kurt Mansfield appeals from a Rutland Family Court decision
  awarding defendant Jayne Mansfield sole legal and physical rights and
  responsibilities for the parties' minor children, and distributing the
  parties' property.  Plaintiff claims that three of the court's findings are
  clearly erroneous and that the court abused its discretion in not properly
  weighing the recommendations of the family evaluator, not providing an
  even-handed analysis of the 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) factors, and not making an
  equitable division of property.  We affirm.

       Kurt and Jayne Mansfield were married on August 7, 1983.  The marriage
  produced three children, Ross, Tiffany, and Erin, who at the time of the
  divorce were ages twelve, ten, and seven years old respectively.  This
  divorce action began in 1993.

       Pursuant to V.R.F.P. 5(a), the trial court ordered a family
  evaluation, which was filed with the court on February 10, 1995.  The
  evaluator recommended that custody of the children be awarded to plaintiff,
  with legal rights and responsibilities shared by both parties.  Defendant
  subsequently contacted a psychologist and entered into counseling with him. 
  The psychologist concluded that the children would be best served if they
  were to remain in the primary care of defendant.  The trial court granted
  the divorce and, acting under § 665(b), awarded legal and physical rights
  and responsibilities of the minor children to defendant, with visitation
  awarded to plaintiff.  Pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 751, it also made an
  equitable distribution of the parties' property.

       With respect to the custody determination, plaintiff argues that the
  trial court's findings do not represent a complete, balanced, or
  even-handed analysis of the § 665(b) factors, that the trial court
  minimized and mischaracterized the family evaluator's recommendation and
  placed undue weight on defendant's therapist's testimony, and that certain
  of its findings are clearly erroneous. The family court has broad
  discretion in custody matters, and this Court must affirm its decision
  unless this discretion was erroneously exercised.  See Myott v. Myott, 149
  Vt. 573, 578,