Title: Cloutier (Fletcher) v. Blowers

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Cloutier (Fletcher) v. Blowers  (98-436); 172 Vt. 450; 783 A.2d 961

[Filed 31-Aug-2001]

       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. 98-436

Suzanne Cloutier (Fletcher)	           Supreme Court

                                           On Appeal from
     v.	                                   Orleans Family Court

John Blowers	                           March Term, 2000

Edward J. Cashman, J.

Matthew Colburn, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John R. Durrance, Jr. of Gaston, Durrance & Fairbanks, Montpelier, for 
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.  John Blowers (father) appeals from an Orleans Family
  Court order that  awarded sole legal and physical parental rights and
  responsibilities to Suzanne Fletcher (mother) and  visitation rights to
  father.  According to father, the court erred because it (1) based its
  custody  decision upon father's age, (2) applied a
  best-interests-of-the-mother standard in reaching its custody 
  determination, (3) required the parties to file proposed findings of fact
  and conclusions of law at the  close of mother's evidence but prior to
  father's presentation of evidence, and (4) met with the parties  without
  their attorneys present.  We reverse and remand for a new trial.

       The family court found the following facts.  Father and mother met in
  1992, their son, Tarik,  was born in 1993, and they separated in 1996. 
  Father and mother were never married.  Throughout 

  

  the parties' relationship, they maintained separate households, although
  they often lived together.   From Tarik's birth until the court's final
  order awarding mother sole parental rights and  responsibilities, the
  parties shared equal responsibility for Tarik's care.  During the parties' 
  relationship, mother lived in Newport, Vermont; however, in 1997, she moved
  to Stowe.  Father  lives in West Glover, Vermont, where he has lived since
  1971.  Mother was previously married and  had four children, one of whom
  died in an automobile accident in 1990. 

       In July 1996, mother petitioned the court for an order allocating
  parental rights and  responsibilities.  In August 1996, the court entered a
  temporary order of shared legal and physical  parental rights and
  responsibilities pursuant to the parties' stipulation.

       The hearing on the final order commenced in April 1998.  On July 13,
  at the close of  mother's evidence, the court instructed the parties to
  file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of  law at the next hearing,
  prior to father's presentation of evidence.  Father objected to providing 
  mother with his proposed findings and conclusions, arguing that it would be
  unfair and prejudicial  for mother to have his findings and conclusions
  prior to his presentation of the evidence.  The court  rejected father's
  argument, and the parties filed their findings and conclusions with the
  court and  exchanged them with each other.  Father presented evidence over
  the course of four days, and the  hearings were completed on July 29, 1998.

       On July 31, the parties appeared before the court without their
  attorneys and discussed the  case and their respective positions.(FN1)   At
  that time, the court gave the parties a proposed joint  custody order and
  asked them to review it with their attorneys.  The following week, both
  attorneys  filed an objection to the proposed order.  The court issued its
  final order on August 12, 1998, and 

  

  subsequently issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.  This appeal
  followed.

       Where, as here, parents cannot agree to joint custody, the trial court
  "must award primary (or  sole) parental rights and responsibilities to one
  parent."  Cabot v. Cabot, 166 Vt. 485, 493,