Title: In re Cifarelli

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. 90-332


 In re Anabelle Cifarelli                     Supreme Court
 (Annamae Turull, appellant)
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Superior Court

                                              December Term, 1991


 Stephen B. Martin, J.

 Charles R. Tetzlaff of Latham, Eastman, Schweyer & Tetzlaff, Burlington, for
   plaintiff-appellant

 William B. Gray of Sheehey Brue Gray & Furlong, Burlington, for defendant-
   appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen,C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

      MORSE, J.   On December 10, 1988, Anabelle Cifarelli's parents and
 sister were asphyxiated in their Burlington home when a gas heating system
 malfunctioned.  Anabelle, five months old at the time, survived and now
 lives with her maternal grandmother, Joan von Albrecht, in Bermuda.  This
 controversy centers on the efforts by the paternal grandmother, Annamae
 Turull, who lives in Connecticut, to obtain visitation with Anabelle.
      Mrs. Turull appeals a superior court decision vacating a probate order
 which conditioned Joan von Albrecht's authority to consent to adoption on
 the allowance of "reasonable right of visitation, or access ... for
 [Anabelle] to maintain her relationship with her paternal grandmother."  The
 superior court held that Vermont did not have subject matter jurisdiction
 over Anabelle's custody or visitation because, under the provisions of the
 Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 15 V.S.A. {{ 1031-1051,
 Bermuda was the proper jurisdiction to consider these issues.  We affirm,
 but, because we hold the probate court did not have jurisdiction to order
 any relief beyond an initial order giving Mrs. von Albrecht temporary
 guardianship of Anabelle, we vacate the probate order dated January 12,
 1990, in its entirety.
      Anabelle was placed in the temporary custody of the Vermont Department
 of Social and Rehabilitation Services after her parents' deaths.  At that
 time, Anabelle had no living relatives in Vermont.  On December 13, 1988,
 she was released by the district court to the custody of Mrs. von Albrecht,
 a resident of Bermuda and appellee in this case.  Mrs. von Albrecht obtained
 a guardianship appointment from the Chittenden Probate Court the next day.
 Shortly thereafter, following discussions with the child's paternal
 relatives, Mrs. von Albrecht took Anabelle to her home in Bermuda.
      The parties disagree on the substance of their initial conversations
 regarding Anabelle.  Mrs. Turull maintains that she was under the impression
 that Mrs. von Albrecht's custody of the child would be temporary.  Mrs. von
 Albrecht, on the other hand, argues that the parties understood that long-
 term custody of the child would be with her.  On December 19, 1988, Mrs.
 Turull initiated her own guardianship petition in probate court.  At a
 December 19, 1989 status conference, the court appointed a guardian ad
 litem for Anabelle.  Mrs. Turull did not request a hearing on her petition
 in the year that passed between its filing and the date it was first heard,
 January 10, 1990.  During this time, the child lived with Mrs. von Albrecht
 in Bermuda.
      On May 3, 1989, Mrs. von Albrecht submitted an adoption application in
 Bermuda, but did not inform Mrs. Turull of that action until August 1989.
 Apparently unable to resolve disagreements regarding visitation, Mrs. Turull
 requested the probate court to allow grandparent visitation under 15 V.S.A.
 { 1011 in the event her guardianship application was denied.  On the same
 date, Mrs. von Albrecht moved to dismiss Mrs. Turull's petition for lack of
 subject matter jurisdiction.
      On January 12, 1990, the probate court denied Mrs. von Albrecht's
 motion to dismiss and issued an order, giving her the authority, as the
 child's guardian, to consent to her husband's adoption of the child in
 Bermuda, but conditioned that authority on the allowance of paternal
 grandparent visitation.  See 15 V.S.A. { 435(4) (consent shall be given by
 guardian if minor to be adopted is under a guardianship).  The probate court
 also awarded Mrs. Turull preadoption visitation under the grandparent visi-
 tation statute, holding, without explanation, that the UCCJA did not apply.
 Mrs. von Albrecht appealed to Chittenden Superior Court and moved to dismiss
 the visitation petition and vacate that part of the guardianship order that
 conditioned her right to consent to adoption.  Mrs. Turull did not contest
 in superior court the probate court's judgment in any respect.  The superior
 court gave Mrs. von Albrecht unconditioned authority to consent to the
 adoption in Bermuda, and Mrs. Turull has appealed to this Court, claiming
 that Vermont courts have jurisdiction to resolve the visitation dispute. At
 the time of the appeal, the child was almost two years old and had been
 living with Mrs. von Albrecht for one and one-half years.
      In the meantime, a Bermuda "Special Court" dismissed Mrs. von
 Albrecht's Bermuda adoption petition on November 9, 1990.  She appealed
 that order, and, after a hearing, the Bermuda adoption application was
 granted with no conditions attached.  This Court was informed at oral
 argument, however, that there is a procedure which allows that dispute to
 continue, by way of appeal to an appellate court in England.
      Throughout this controversy, the only real disagreement is over the
 paternal relatives' access to the child.  Mrs. von Albrecht objects to
 mandated visitation by the paternal relatives, believing that it would be in
 the best interest of the child to allow visitation at her discretion.  While
 Mrs. Turull originally filed for guardianship, her attorney conceded at oral
 argument that visitation, as opposed to custody of the child, is the
 underlying concern.  The superior court and the Bermuda Supreme Court both
 acknowledged this fact.  Mrs. Turull's actions in the Bermuda proceedings
 verify this -- she withdrew her application for adoption, and the child's
 paternal aunt and uncle were substituted as adoption applicants in her
 place.  On appeal here, Mrs. Turull concedes that the UCCJA applies and that
 Bermuda is a "state" for purposes of the Act, but argues that Vermont has
 continuing jurisdiction over the custody and visitation issues.
      We agree with the superior court that the Chittenden Probate Court had
 jurisdiction to enter the initial guardianship petition giving Mrs. von
 Albrecht temporary custody of Anabelle under 14 V.S.A. { 2645(1) ("the pro-
 bate court may appoint a guardian of the minor . . . [w]hen the minor has no
 parent living authorized to act as guardian"), and under the UCCJA, 15 V.S.A
 { 1032(a)(3)(B) (jurisdiction conferred to initially determine child custody
 when "necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he . . . is .
 . . neglected").  See In re B.J.C., 149 Vt. 196, 198,