Title: Lane v. Schenck

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-447


 Nancy Lane                                   Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Caledonia Family Court

 James L. Schenck, Jr.                        April Term, 1992



 Dean B. Pineles, J.

 Dorothy L. Helling, Montpelier, for appellants

 Steven A. Adler of Gensburg Axelrod & Adler, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-
   cross-appellant

 M. Jerome Diamond and Kimberly R. Elia of Diamond & Associates, P.C.,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.   Plaintiff-mother appeals a family court order modifying her
 parental rights and responsibilities (custody) by imposing a condition that
 she reside in a location requiring no more than a four-hour drive from
 defendant-father's residence.  The modification was the court's response to
 father's request for custody of the couple's three children after mother
 announced her intent to attend law school in Iowa.  We must decide what
 standard applies in a proceeding brought under 15 V.S.A. { 668 (modification
 of custody) when, without agreement, a custodial parent decides to move a
 significant distance from the noncustodial parent.  The family court deter-
 mined that it was in the children's best interests to remain in mother's
 custody relatively near father's home.  The court fashioned its order as it
 did because of mother's testimony that she would not move to Iowa without
 the children and that keeping custody was her first priority.   We reverse
 and remand because the court failed to show sufficient deference to the
 mother's decision to relocate.  The proper test is whether the children's
 best interests would be better served if they were placed in father's
 custody in Vermont given mother's choice to live and go to school in Iowa.
      The parents in this case were divorced in 1989, after nine years of
 marriage.  The court awarded mother the parental rights and responsibilities
 of the three minor children, who were eleven, eight, and seven years old at
 the time of the modification hearing in the summer 1991.  Father was given
 parent-child contact (visitation) with the children on alternate weekends
 and holidays, and at such other times as agreed by the parties.  Since then,
 mother and children have lived in Cabot, Vermont, and father has remarried
 and resides nearby.
      After the divorce, mother announced that she was preparing to move with
 the children to Iowa City in order to attend law school at the University of
 Iowa.  Father then sought, in accordance with 15 V.S.A. { 668, to modify the
 divorce judgment, requesting a change in custody.  Father also requested, in
 the event custody was not changed, a modification of the visitation and
 child support portion of the divorce judgment to account for the burdens of
 increased travel time and cost.
      The family court found that both parents were fit custodians, but that
           the children have a better and healthier relationship
           with Ms. Lane.  They love their mother, strongly prefer
           the present custodial situation, would be devastated by
           a change in custody and want to accompany her to Iowa
           City.

           . . . .

           Ms. Lane is the primary care provider.  This fact is
           beyond dispute, and is acknowledged by Mr. Schenck.  The
           children have a warm, loving relationship with her, and
           would be adversely affected if removed from her custody.
           They want to remain with her, and should. . . .

 Father, according to the court, is
           a sterner disciplinarian and has consistently used
           corporal punishment on the children.  On at least two
           occasions, his disciplining of [one of the children] has
           been excessive (slap in face and holding off ground
           against wall).  The children, especially [this child],
           believe their father is unfair and unpredictable in his
           displays of anger and use of discipline, and
           occasionally fear him.  Nevertheless, the children
           generally enjoy their time with him.  Mr. Schenck is
           generally a constructive force in their lives.

           . . . .

             Mr. Schenck's displays of anger and use of physical
           discipline have been excessive and unpredictable at
           times.  This has not been good for the children's
           physical and emotional well being.  Thus, the environ-
           ment is safer in their mother's home.

 In addition, the court found that the children had not adjusted well to the
 divorce, "are not rooted in the community[, and] leaving Cabot would not be
 detrimental to them."  The court did not think father would be able to "meet
 the children's developmental needs" without counselling.  The court also
 concluded that "Mr. Schenck's primary goal is not to be awarded physical
 responsibility for the children but to prevent Ms. Lane from moving to Iowa
 with them."  The mother's commitment to the children was described by the
 court:
             If Ms. Lane were required to chose between 1) going to
           Iowa Law School and losing custody, or 2) remaining in
           Vermont (or going to some closer school) and keeping
           custody, she would opt, without hesitation, for the
           latter alternative.  Maintaining custody is paramount.

      The court framed the critical issue as follows:

             The question is whether it is in the children's best
           interest to make the move.  If the answer is yes, then
           of course the children would accompany their mother to
           Iowa City.  If the answer is no, then the children would
           continue to live with Ms. Lane since she would not go to
           Iowa without them.

 The move to Iowa, according to the court, would not necessarily be
 beneficial due to adjustment demands of a new community, mother's busy
 schedule, and the present emotional problems of the children.  Under these
 circumstances, the court concluded, the children's needs could not
 adequately be met with mother in law school and in the absence of father's
 presence.  The order of the court provided:
             Defendant's motion to modify the custody order is
           granted as follows:  Ms. Lane's custodial rights shall
           be subject to the right of Mr. Schenck to have meaning-
           ful contact with the children.  For purposes of this
           case, meaningful contact is physical contact that can
           be achieved by a drive of no more than four hours one
           way.

             Because of the emotional problems that the children
           are now suffering, they shall be enrolled in counseling.
           Mr. Schenck shall also enroll in counseling to improve
           his relationship with his children and his parenting
           skills.


                                     I.
        Mother's first argument is that the family court erred in finding
 that changed circumstances existed to justify modification under 15 V.S.A. {
 668.  That statute gives the trial court authority to modify a custodial
 order "upon a showing of real, substantial and unanticipated change of
 circumstances  . . . if it is in the best interests of the child."  Mother
 argues that father knew of her intentions to attend law school long before
 the divorce was granted.  Contrary to her assertions, however, the trial
 court found the change was unanticipated.  Although her plans to attend
 graduate school were the subject of ongoing discussions between the couple,
 mother never indicated that she still intended to return to school during
 separation and while the parties were going through divorce proceedings,
 which included a contested custody dispute.  In addition, mother had taken a
 full-time job at the Cabot Creamery and had set up residence in Cabot.
      The court found that, at the time of the divorce, father reasonably
 concluded mother had abandoned her educational plans.  Mother's reinitiation
 of her plans, involving a move to another jurisdiction, was a changed cir-
 cumstance found by the court to be "unanticipated."  The threshold deter-
 mination for a motion to modify is discretionary, Hayes v. Hayes, 144 Vt.
 332, 336,