Opinion ID: 2386212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Placing the Family Court Decision in a Bad Light

Text: The Cloutier decision has another aspect that is an indication that we are not seriously applying the limited standard of review that binds us. In reviewing findings of fact, we must view them in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Stickney v. Stickney, 170 Vt. 547, 548, 742 A.2d 1228, 1230 (1999) (mem.). A party challenging conclusions of law must overcome the great deference we give to the court's conclusions, and we must make all reasonable inferences in support of the court's judgment. Bevins v. King, 147 Vt. 203, 206, 514 A.2d 1044, 1046 (1986). Put another way, this Court must construe [findings] so as to support the judgment, if possible. Armstrong v. Hanover Ins. Co., 130 Vt. 182, 185, 289 A.2d 669, 671 (1972). I find no indication in the majority opinion that it gave deference to the family court's conclusions or that it construed the findings to support the judgment. Rather than fairly interpreting the family court findings and rationale in support of its decision, the majority recharacterizes the decision in a way that makes it virtually indefensible. In doing so, it raises a new issue not considered by the family court or argued by the parties. We now know how the majority would have decided the case had it been the family court. We have, however, done a disservice to the parties, the child and the trial court by introducing our issue on appeal. Although the family court decided the case primarily on the relative age of the parents, it found that at least one additional factor favored the mother as custodian, as follows: While either could discharge the role of parent adequately, the mother shows more promise for long term stability and consistency of caretaking. The mother has shown she can capably provide for the child's broad breadth of needs. She has successfully raised a family. She has endured and overcome one of life's most poignant tragedies with the death of a child. She has focused her life and emotional resources to successfully raise this child. This emotional investment to this child is so strong that any attempt to deny her the primary role of caretaker would destroy her. Her emotional attachment is not unreasonable. Her need to raise this child should be encouraged for both her good and the child's good. Should she lose the primary role of caretaker, this would adversely impact on the child. There is no need of the child's met by that drastic result. The child can have the best of both parents as the situation permits. Perhaps, they will become more comfortable with each other as parents, now that fear of removal of the child from the mother is gone. In one page of his brief, the father attacked this additional consideration as focusing on the mother's needs and not the best interest of the child. I discuss that below; for now, the point is that the father made no additional claims about the court's rationale. The majority found this rationale to be inadequate and unsupported by the findings, at least as to the factor contained in § 665(b)(5). The Court describes the family court's rationale as follows: (1) mother and father, who were not married, decided to have a child to fill a void in mother's life created by the tragic death of one of her children; (2) mother expected that the father would want little role in the child's life; (3) to mother's frustration, father took a very active role with the child and attempted to provide for both the child and the mother; (4) as a result, mother accused father of all sorts of misconduct during the custody case, but the family court failed to find that the misconduct had occurred; and (5) mother made the accusations to minimize the role of father in the child's life. Once it has described the family court's rationale in this way, it is no surprise that the majority concluded it did not support a finding that mother as a custodian would better foster for the child a positive relationship and frequent contact with the father than father as custodian would foster with the mother. Indeed, it has recast the family court's rationale so it supports custody in the father, not the mother. Consistent with its description of the family court's rationale, the majority has added that the family court should have pursued whether mother intended to alienate father from the child through her allegations. One can find pieces of the majority's rationale in the family court decision, but not in the way the majority has put them together. For example, the family court rejected mother's allegations that father abused her and misused drugs and speculated that she might have made such accusations to minimize his role in the child's life. It never suggested that the mother was trying to alienate the child from the father. Indeed, it found that the parents had successfully co-parented in the past and tried hard to induce them to develop a new co-parenting arrangement. This case is a far cry from Renaud v. Renaud, 168 Vt. 306, 309, 721 A.2d 463, 465 (1998), in which the family court expressly found that mother had undermined the child's relationship with father by filing excessive and baseless abuse allegations. We are not faithful to the limited standard of review if we construe the family court decision in a way to make it least defensible. If the family court made any mistake here to induce the majority's response, it was a labeling mistake. The family court's rationale better fits factor three, 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(3), or an independent factor, than factor five, id. § 665(b)(5). Under the proper standard of review, a labeling mistake does not justify the majority's response of creating a new and indefensible analysis. We do, I believe, have to address directly the argument that father did make on appeal  that the family court rendered its decision based on the interests of the mother, rather than the interests of the child. I again stress that this is an exceptional case. The parties, who never expected to marry, planned this child to fill a void in mother's life caused by the death of another child. Thus, in explaining its rationale, the family court stressed the effect an adverse custody decision would have on the mother. If the court had gone no further, I would agree with appellant father that we could not affirm the court's conclusion. But the family court did go further and relate the mother's loss to the effect on the child. Essentially, the court concluded that making the father the primary custodian would have such an effect on the mother that it would destroy her ability to be an effective parent, adversely affecting the child. It concluded that the reverse custody situation would not have this effect. Its reasoning is focused primarily on the effect of its decision on the best interests of the child. In these circumstances, I would affirm the family court's conclusion as consistent with the statutory mandate of § 665(b) under our deferential standard of review.