Title: Varnum v. Varnum

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-308


Larry James Varnum                           Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
     v.                                      Caledonia Superior Court

Christine Carol Varnum                       May Term, 1989


Alan W. Cheever, J.

Gensburg Axelrod & Adler, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-appellee

John L. Kellner of Langrock Sperry Parker & Wool, Middlebury, for
  defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Keyser, J. (Ret.) and
          Springer, D.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   This is a divorce action between Larry James Varnum,
plaintiff, and Carol Christine Varnum, defendant.  They were divorced by
order of the Caledonia Superior Court on May 17, 1987.  Although the trial
court dealt with all issues between the parties, the only appeal issues
relate to custody of the two children of the marriage -- Mack, now age 13
and Sarah, now age 11.  The court awarded legal and physical responsibility
for both children to plaintiff, and defendant appeals that award.  We
affirm.
     Defendant makes four arguments in this Court:  (1) the trial court's
custody decision impermissibly considered her religious beliefs and
activities, in violation of the United States and the Vermont Constitutions;
(2) the trial court failed to consider and accord weight to defendant's
status as the primary care giver as required by 15 V.S.A. { 665(b)(6) (FN1); (3)
the trial court made key findings of fact that were unsupported by the
evidence and clearly erroneous; and (4) the trial court's setting of a
strict time limitation for the presentation of each side's case deprived
defendant of a fair trial.  After setting forth the facts, we discuss these
arguments in order.
     Although the hearing in this case was long and acrimonious, (FN2) the trial
court reduced the testimony to fifty-three findings, made orally and on the
record.  The following is a summary of the findings.
     The parties were married in California and relocated by joint decision
to Vermont in 1978.  Defendant has a daughter from a prior marriage who
lived with them in California and relocated with them to Vermont.  One of
the children of the parties was born shortly before the move, and one was
born shortly thereafter.  The marriage was fraught with difficulty, and the
parties separated twice before seeking a divorce.  They last lived together
in 1985.  Plaintiff filed this action that same year, and defendant was
awarded temporary custody of the two minor children.  Defendant's daughter
returned to California to live with her natural father.
     The court made extensive findings relating to the ability of each
parent to raise the children and serve as primary custodian.  It found that
both parties had secure jobs and sufficient income to raise the children.
It found that plaintiff had on one occasion slapped defendant on the face
but had otherwise not been physically or sexually abusive toward her.  It
rejected as not credible defendant's other allegations that plaintiff
sexually and physically abused her.
     Each party alleged that the other physically abused the children.  The
court found that plaintiff had used a belt to administer discipline to
defendant's daughter, and on one occasion used the belt on his son.  It
found, however, that such discipline was not occurring at the time of the
hearing and that plaintiff did not use physical discipline on a regular
basis.  It found that defendant physically abused the two children and that
she believes:
         strict discipline is essential to install a conditioned
         response in the children to certain demands imposed
         upon them by her.  When the children fail to respond to
         her, she believes that it is appropriate and she does
         administer physical punishment to the children and has
         done so with various implements which includes [sic] a
         spoon, a ladle and a paddle.
            The Defendant has punished the children by striking
         them about the face and body using both her hands and
         other implements with sufficient force to leave red
         marks on the children's skin.  The court finds that
         that physical discipline does amount to physical abuse.

Defendant's daughter alleged that plaintiff had sexually abused her when she
was living with the parties in Vermont.  The court found this accusation not
credible.
     Both parties have abused alcohol, and defendant twice attempted suicide
while under the influence of alcohol.  Although defendant has been told she
should not consume alcohol, she continues to be a moderate drinker.
     Both parties spend a great deal of their free time with the children.
The findings detail activities in which each party participates with the
children to show, with respect to each parent, a supportive relationship.
Each parent has a residence and can provide safe and suitable care for the
children.  If she obtained custody, defendant intended to return to
California with the children.
     The trial court made a number of findings that relate to defendant's
religious beliefs.  Defendant is a Jehovah's Witness and is a strict
disciple of her faith.  Her belief in physical punishment to discipline the
children was apparently related to her religion.  Because of her religious
belief, she forbade the children to have close relationships with children
who were not members of her faith, and would not allow the children to
celebrate birthdays or holidays although the children traditionally
celebrated holidays and found it enjoyable.  Defendant would not permit
blood transfusions even if told by a doctor that the children needed the
procedure.  There was, however, no evidence of health problems in the
children that would create the need for a transfusion.  Defendant deferred
to church elders for help in making decisions.  The court found that
allowing others to assist in decision making hampered her ability to
determine the best interests of the children.
     The court ordered a psychological evaluation of the parties and the
children.  The psychologist's evaluation recommended that custody be
awarded to plaintiff.  Although the psychologist's conclusions were based on
numerous factors, the most important were that:  (1) if defendant obtained
custody, she intended to severely limit plaintiff's access to the children
and move from the state as soon as possible; (2) plaintiff had "a better
attitude and concept of what children need to be raised in a normal
fashion"; and (3) defendant admitted "to hitting the children and leaving
marks on their body, a sign of physical abuse."  Based on the evaluation,
which the court found was fair to both parties, and the extensive evidence,
the court concluded that it would be in the best interests of the children
to award parental rights and responsibilities primarily to the plaintiff
father.
                                    I.
     Defendant first argues that because the court made findings of fact
that touched upon her religious beliefs and because the issue of religion
permeated the trial, the court violated the free exercise clauses of the
Vermont and United States Constitutions. (FN3) She argues, therefore, that the
custody decision of the superior court must be vacated and the cause
remanded for a new custody hearing.
     Defendant acknowledges that her constitutional argument is raised for
the first time on appeal and was never brought before the trial court.
Although there was extensive evidence about the religion and religious
practices of each party, with an emphasis on the religious practices of
defendant, neither party objected to the introduction of the evidence or its
use in arriving at a custody determination.  Both parties submitted evidence
pertaining to religion.
     It is, of course, black-letter law that this Court will not consider an
issue not raised below, see Albarelli v. Albarelli, 152 Vt. 46, 49, 564 A.2d 598, 600 (1989), except in extreme and unusual circumstances.  See State v.
Hoadley, 147 Vt. 49, 53,