Title: Fenoff v. Fenoff

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. 89-334


Connie Ella Fenoff                           Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Orange Superior Court
William Clyde Fenoff
                                             February Term, 1990


Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

John Morale, Wells River, for plaintiff-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiff was awarded custody of the parties' son in a
1985 decree of the Orange Superior Court and appeals an order of that court
enforcing defendant's visitation rights.  We affirm.
     The 1985 decree provided as follows:
            11) The care, custody and control of the minor child
          of the parties, to wit, Roy Scott Fenoff, is decreed to
          the Plaintiff subject, however, to the rights of the
          Defendant to visit and have the child with him every
          other weekend from 6:00 P.M. Friday to 6:00 P.M. Sunday,
          and also the right to have the minor child with him at
          least two weeks during the summer vacation.  Both
          parties shall have the right to take the minor child
          with them to New Hampshire for shopping and visits with
          relatives.

Visitations never occurred as contemplated in the 1985 decree, and defendant
filed a motion to enforce his rights in October, 1988.
     At the hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the child, who
was nine when the 1985 decree was entered, refused to join his father for
the prescribed visitations, even though defendant attempted visitations six
times in that year.  Nevertheless, Roy still "held his father in positive
regard" as late as early 1985.  After the child's repeated refusal to visit
with his father, defendant stopped his attempts in order to give his son
time to change his mind.  Defendant attempted to see his son three times in
1988, but plaintiff did not allow him into her home, though there were
meetings on the front steps which the court found were not satisfactory.
     The court made specific findings about Roy Fenoff's state of mind in
refusing to visit with his father, noting that he "is suffering a great deal
of pain and anger over issues of the divorce, divided loyalties, and the
role of his father in his life."  The court found that Roy's reasons for not
visiting his father had to do with his "early recollection of treatment of
his mother and dog by his father during the marriage, and certain behaviors
and eccentricities of his father of which he disapproves."  The court also
found that the son's "animosity toward his father has steadily increased, to
the point that he professes hatred of Mr. Fenoff."  Roy, according to the
court, "seems to harbor the unrealistic notion that if he steadfastly
refuses to visit with his father, Mr. Fenoff will somehow disappear as a
factor in his life."
     The court ordered that visitation take place at a community mental
health facility in the presence of a counsellor "with whom Roy has
established a therapeutic relationship."  The court allowed the counsellor
to set the date when the child "is emotionally capable of dealing with this
visit."  The court directed plaintiff to arrange pre-visitation counseling
"to assist him in dealing with his anger and pain regarding his parents'
divorce, and to assist him in developing an adequate relationship with his
father."  Defendant was ordered to meet with his son's counsellor.  Plain-
tiff was ordered to require her son to comply with the provisions of the
order, to make the necessary appointments, and to arrange for transpor-
tation.  The court invited the parties to seek further judicial intervention
in the event either of the parties believed that the counseling was not
effectuating the purposes of its order.  Plaintiff appealed the order to
this Court.
     On appeal, plaintiff's first contention is that it is not in the best
interests of the parties' son for him to resume visitation with his father.
She cites cases from other jurisdictions holding that the welfare of the
child is a more important consideration than visitation with the non-
custodial parent.  Hagler v. Hagler,