Title: Bancroft v. Bancroft

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. 89-162


Linda J. Bancroft                                 Supreme Court

     v.                                           On Appeal from
                                                  Chittenden Superior Court
Robert L. Bancroft
                                                  April Term, 1990


David A. Jenkins, J.

Linda R. LeRoy of McNeil & Murray, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

S. Crocker Bennett, II, of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for
   defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   Defendant Robert Bancroft appeals from a divorce decree
of the Chittenden Superior Court awarding plaintiff Linda Bancroft
maintenance and child support, as well as physical and legal responsibility
for the parties' two children.  We affirm.
                                    I.
     Linda and Robert Bancroft separated in November of 1986 after eleven
and one-half years of marriage.  The parties have two children -- Nathan,
born in 1982, and Ira, born in 1983.  Upon separation, the parties attempted
a joint-custody arrangement with the children, but it was unsuccessful
because of animosity between the parties.  Linda, a consultant and place-
ment specialist for the Burlington School Department with an approximate
annual income of $30,000, was the children's primary nurturing parent during
their infancy.  Robert, a consultant and an assistant professor in the
College of Agriculture at the University of Vermont with an approximate
annual income of $40,000, has assisted in the care of the children since
their birth.  The parties have resided in Vermont since their marriage,
except from 1976 to 1981, when they moved to Indiana and then Washington,
D.C. so that Robert could obtain his doctorate.  As a result of the move
from Vermont, Linda had to close a pension account and did not have another
plan available to her until she accepted her current job.
     Linda filed for divorce in November of 1986, and was awarded temporary
custody of the children.  Following three days of hearings on the merits,
the superior court granted the parties a divorce, assigned Linda physical
and legal responsibility for the children, and required that Robert pay $772
per month in child support and $200 per month as rehabilitative maintenance
for a period of five years or until remarriage.  The court also granted
Robert visitation rights, enabling him to be with his children every other
weekend, one weekday evening each week, and one-half of any school vacation
time.  Robert filed a motion to amend the findings and judgment or, in the
alternative, for a new trial.  Following a hearing, the court denied the
motion.
     On appeal, Robert contends that (1) the court erred in awarding Linda
separate maintenance; (2) the court's award of parental rights and
responsibilities solely to Linda violated Robert's state and federal
constitutional right to parent; and (3) the court's award of visitation was
contrary to the evidence and state public policy.


                                    II.
     Robert argues that the maintenance award was improper because (1) the
court's reasons for making the award were contrary to the law and to the
evidence presented in the case; (2) the court made no finding regarding
Linda's "reasonable needs," as required by 15 V.S.A. { 752; and (3) the
court failed to determine that Robert had the ability to pay maintenance.
We disagree.
     Under 15 V.S.A. { 752(a), the court may order maintenance if it finds
that the spouse seeking maintenance (1) lacks sufficient income or property
to provide for his or her reasonable needs, and (2) is the custodial parent
or is unable to support himself or herself at the standard of living
established during the marriage.  A maintenance award must fall within the
flexible confines of this statute, Downs v. Downs, No. 88-283, slip op. at 4
(Vt. Apr. 6, 1990); a party challenging the award must show that there is no
reasonable basis to support it.  Quesnel v. Quesnel, 150 Vt. 149, 151,