Title: Maurer v. Maurer

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Maurer v. Maurer (2003-572); 178 Vt. 489; 872 A.2d 326

2005 VT 26

[Filed 22-Feb-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 26

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-572

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2004

  Lesli Maurer	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Addison Family Court
                                       }	
  Niel Maurer	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 146-6-01 Andm

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

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

       ¶  1.  Father appeals from the family court's order modifying parental
  rights and responsibilities, and awarding sole legal and physical parental
  rights and responsibilities over the parties' minor child to mother. 
  Mother is proceeding pro se. (FN1)  Father argues that the family court
  erred because: (1) the evidence does not support a finding that there has
  been a material change in circumstances; (2) the court's findings are
  insufficient to show that a transfer of custody to mother is in the child's
  best interests; and (3) the mediation provision in the parties' final
  divorce decree must be enforced.  We affirm the trial court's conclusion
  regarding changed circumstances, but we  reverse the court's conclusion
  that a transfer of sole custody to mother was in the child's best
  interests.    

       ¶  2.  Mother and father are the parents of Benjamin Mauer, born in
  May 1992.  Parents separated in 1999, and were divorced in May 2002.  At
  the time of their divorce, they agreed to share legal and physical rights
  and responsibilities over Ben.  They also agreed to attempt to resolve any
  future disputes through mediation before returning to court.  On September
  26, 2003, mother, then with counsel, filed a motion to modify parental
  rights and responsibilities.  Mother asserted that father had refused to
  allow Ben to engage in counseling, which she believed was in Ben's best
  interest.  She also averred that father had discussed the issue of
  counseling with Ben, thereby putting him in the middle of the
  decisionmaking process.  Mother acknowledged that the parties had agreed to
  mediate disputes, but stated that father had refused to participate in
  mediation.  
   
       ¶  3.  The family court held a hearing on mother's motion on October
  21, 2003; father appeared pro se, and mother was represented by counsel. 
  Mother testified that, since October, the parties were no longer evenly
  sharing physical custody of Ben; instead, Ben was spending most of his time
  with her and every other weekend with father.  Mother explained that in
  December 2002, father had remarried and moved to a new residence
  approximately twenty miles away, and recently it had become difficult for
  father to pick Ben up at mother's home.  Mother also stated that Ben was
  spending less time at father's home because Ben did not feel that he had
  his own personal space there.  Mother testified that, beginning in December
  2002, Ben began to have difficulty sleeping and with his schoolwork, and he
  was suffering from low self-esteem.  Mother introduced a recommendation
  from Ben's pediatrician, dated September 18, 2003, referring Ben for
  individual counseling.  Mother testified that she had informed father of
  the doctor's  recommendation, and father had responded that they should
  wait six months to see if the situation improved.  Mother testified that
  father had discussed counseling with Ben against her wishes.  Mother also
  stated that she and father disagreed about Ben's involvement in
  after-school activities.  She indicated that her communication with father
  in this area had been "pretty acrimonious."  She also asserted that father
  had acted unilaterally in making decisions regarding Ben's activities.

       ¶  4.  Father testified on his own behalf.  He stated that he and
  mother had clear and steady communication about Ben.  Father indicated that
  he was reluctant to engage a mediator over Ben's after-school schedule,
  instead finding it more appropriate to first attempt to work out the
  problem themselves.  Father stated that mother had first informed him about
  Ben's self-esteem issues, and her desire that Ben engage in counseling, in
  late September 2003.  Father was concerned that the recommending physician
  had not seen Ben directly, and felt that a better approach might be to
  first increase Ben's participation in outside activities to see if this
  helped boost his self-esteem.  Father testified that he called Ben's
  pediatrician as well as the school guidance counselor to garner more
  information about Ben's condition.  He stated that, while he preferred a
  different initial approach, he remained open to the use of therapy.
   
       ¶  5.  The court rendered its decision on the record at the close of
  the hearing.  The court stated that, although the parties' final divorce
  order provided that they would have joint legal and physical
  responsibilities, the parties had modified that agreement through their
  behavior.  The court found that the parties had substantially different
  parenting styles and methods, and they had demonstrated an inability to
  share parental rights.  The court explained that the parties were unable to
  agree on transportation and counseling, and both parties were setting up
  activities for Ben without consulting one another.  The court thus
  concluded that parents' inability to share joint legal and physical
  responsibilities constituted a substantial and unanticipated change of
  circumstances.  The court found that Ben was suffering as a result of being
  caught between two different parenting styles, and although it found value
  in both parenting styles,"somebody's got to make the decision, and you've
  got to consider the best interest of the child."  The court stated that
  children benefitted from being exposed to different activities, including
  sports, and while mother could consult with father in this regard, "[n]ow
  mother can make the decisions."  A final judgment order was issued
  transferring sole legal physical rights and responsibilities to mother, and
  father appealed.  

       ¶  6.  Father first argues that the evidence presented at the
  hearing was insufficient to support a finding of changed circumstances. 
  Relying on Gates v. Gates, 168 Vt. 64,