Title: Bell v. Squires

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Bell v. Squires (2002-314); 176 Vt. 557; 845 A.2d 1019

2003 VT 109

[Filed 10-Dec-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 109
  	

                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO.  2002-314

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2003

  Leola Stryffeler Bell	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Caledonia Family Court
                                       }	
  Daron Squires	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO.  232-9-00 Cadm

                                                Trial Judge: M.  Kathleen Manley
  	

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

       ¶  1.  Mother appeals a family court order awarding sole legal and
  physical custody of her two children to their natural father.  Mother
  contends that the court erred by ignoring the best interests of the
  children, that it failed to give sufficient weight to her role as the
  children's sole care giver over the last three years, and that it wrongly
  punished her for resisting the court-ordered parent-contact schedule with
  father.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  This case began as a parentage action filed by the Office of
  Child Support against father to establish paternity, parental rights and
  responsibilities, and child support for the younger of his two children. 
  Father, who had no contact with either child for three years, requested
  enforcement of parent-child contact against mother so he could see both
  children.  The court ordered supervised visits "with the goal of
  establishing consistent, ongoing parent-child contact between the children
  and Dad."  Mother's recalcitrance regarding visitation, however, led to a
  series of hearings and court interventions, appointment of a
  parent-coordinator, schedules for supervised contact, and the appointment
  of an attorney and guardian ad litem for the children.  Despite these
  actions, the dispute over parent-child contact escalated, including
  repeated incidents in front of the children and unsubstantiated claims of
  sexual abuse filed by mother.  Finally, in late 2001, father filed an
  emergency motion to modify parental rights and responsibilities seeking to
  obtain legal and physical custody over the children.  It is this custody
  dispute that is now before this Court. 
   
       ¶  3.  The parties lived together from sometime in 1996 until
  October 1997, but were never married.  They are the biological parents of
  two children.  At the time of this appeal, the older child was seven and
  the younger was five.  When the parents separated, mother was seventeen and
  pregnant with the younger child.  The older child was thirteen months old. 
  At separation, the parties stipulated to a relief from abuse order against
  father, but waived findings of abuse.  The RFA order was later amended to
  provide for supervised visits between father and the older child. Father
  never exercised his right to see the child, and the RFA has since lapsed. 

       ¶  4.  In January 2001, father's parentage of the younger child was
  established by genetic testing.  Two case-manager conferences were
  scheduled to determine parental rights and responsibilities.  Mother was
  unavailable for both.  The court then set the matter for a hearing in
  March, following which it issued a temporary order for parental rights and
  parent-child contact.  The order awarded sole legal and physical custody of
  both children to mother, but gave father one hour, one day a week of
  supervised contact with his children.  The court scheduled a follow-up
  hearing sixty days later to determine whether the supervised visits should
  continue.

       ¶  5.  By the time of that hearing, only one visit had occurred due
  to various reasons, including the inability of the supervisor, Family Tree
  Access Center (FTAC), to reach mother.  Then, the second visit  was marred
  by the first of what the trial court calls "many instances of inappropriate
  behavior by Mom in front of the children."  After delivering the children
  for the visit, mother remained on the premises hidden in the bathroom
  contrary to the center's protocol.  Later, when the younger child ran out
  of the supervised visitation room in the direction of the bathroom, father
  followed and picked up the child.  Mother exited the bathroom screaming
  hysterically and accused father of taking the child to the bathroom.  She
  told the center's director, in the presence of the children, that defendant
  had "molested the older child as an infant" and that she was afraid he
  would kill her and the children.  Mother terminated the visit.

       ¶  6.  Two visits later, the parties agreed that father and a case
  worker would take the children to a restaurant.  Mother followed them,
  again against the center's rules.  While eating, the younger child climbed
  under the table.  Father, in the presence of the supervisor, picked the
  child up.  Later that day, mother reported to the same supervisor that she
  had seen father lift the older child and that the child was complaining
  about arm pain.  She put the older child on the telephone, and the child
  told the supervisor about the arm pain.  The next day mother advised that
  the arm had been x-rayed and showed a dislocation. FTAC officials requested
  copies of the medical records, but they were never provided.  At trial, the
  supervisor testified that nothing untoward happened at the restaurant, and
  that father picked up the younger child, not the older child.  As a result
  of these incidents, FTAC opted not to supervise any more visits until
  mother was able to abide by its visitation rules.

       ¶  7.  At the next hearing, in July, the court issued a revised
  parent-child contact schedule extending supervised contacts with father to
  two hours.  The order also prohibited mother from being within 500 feet of
  any place where the contact was occurring or from causing any individual to
  follow, observe, or interfere with a visit.   However, the conflicts
  continued.  So, in August, the court referred the matter to a
  parent-coordinator with directions to help the parties achieve an extended,
  unsupervised contact schedule.
        
       ¶  8.  A month later, mother brought one of the children to the
  doctor's office to be examined for sexual abuse.  The doctor reported the
  allegations to Social Rehabilitative Services.  During the resulting
  investigation, mother reported three different stories to SRS: first, that
  she took the child to the doctor because something was wrong and only
  learned about the abuse while at the doctor's office; second, that the
  child told her about the abuse, which caused her to go to the doctor; and
  third, that the sexual assault occurred at FTAC and that she saw it happen. 
  FTAC reported, however, that father had never once been left alone with
  either child.  SRS concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated. 
  The investigation once again delayed expansion of contact between father
  and the children. 

       ¶  9.  Mother raised many other obstacles. During the early visits,
  mother asked FTAC to prevent the children from eating any food supplied by
  father, out of fear that he might intentionally contaminate the food. 
  Later, mother refused to allow visits to expand from five to seven hours as
  scheduled on grounds that the children came home hungry after visiting
  their father.  Mother also objected to father's mother seeing the children,
  alleging that the grandmother had threatened to remove the older child from
  the hospital at birth, and had to be barred from seeing the newborn by
  hospital staff. 

       ¶  10.  Despite court orders to the contrary, mother and her family
  continued to follow father, both during visitation periods and when he was
  alone or with his wife.  Mother's father once followed father and his wife
  into a restaurant and, while standing immediately behind them in line, said
  that if they were talking about him, he "will become your worst nightmare." 
  The court found that there was substantial credible testimony that for a
  year after the parties separated, members of mother's family harassed
  father and threatened to falsely report him as a child molester.  The court
  concluded that to some degree this explained why father had never sought to
  enforce contact with the older child.  

       ¶  11.   The parent-coordinator's efforts to meet mother's new
  husband or mother's  extended family were rebuffed.  While on a conference
  call regarding the Christmas 2001 holidays with mother and an FTAC staffer,
  the parent-coordinator asked mother to go to another telephone because of
  screaming and shouting by other people at mother's location.  Instead,
  mother called the police to complain that FTAC and the parent-coordinator
  were harassing her and her family.  The police launched an investigation,
  and both FTAC and the parent-coordinator were told never to call the
  mother's home again.  Ultimately, because of these complications, no
  holiday contact occurred between the children and father. 

       ¶  12.  The court, however, ordered visits to resume.  The next
  March, mother reported father for sexual abuse. In the resulting
  investigation, the child again failed to confirm the allegation and no
  physical evidence of abuse was found.  SRS concluded that the report of
  abuse was unsubstantiated.       
        
       ¶  13.  In late 2001, father petitioned the court to modify custody. 
  After four days of hearings the court granted legal and physical custody to
  father.  But, because of the age of the children, and the adjustment
  required in moving their primary residence, the court concluded that it was
  in the children's best interest to have extended contact with the
  non-custodial parent (now mother).  Thus, the court ordered that the
  children shall reside with mother three weekends a month, plus alternating
  vacations and holidays.  Mother now appeals.

       ¶  14.  A family court may change a custody order only when the best
  interests of the child so require.   Habecker v. Giard, 2003 Vt. 18,  5,