Opinion ID: 2794495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mother’s Cross-Appeal

Text: ¶ 26. Mother cross-appeals the trial court’s parent–child contact order. We reiterate that the trial court has wide discretion in such matters: “The court has discretion in setting a visitation schedule, and its decision will not be reversed unless that discretion ‘was exercised upon unfounded considerations or to an extent clearly unreasonable upon the facts presented.’ ” LeBlanc , 2014 VT 65, ¶ 25 (quoting Cleverly v. Cleverly , 151 Vt. 351, 355–56, 561 A.2d 99, 102 (1989)). The trial court initially explained that its goal in creating the schedule was for the parties to share time with their child and minimize the child’s time away from either parent. The trial court devised the schedule to repeat every two months so that father and mother would alternate having weekend time with the child every other month; the schedule allows the child to spend an equal number of days with each parent in an eight-week period. The trial court considered holidays, summer vacations, and birthdays in its schedule, and provided for the child to alternate spending time with each parent at these times. ¶ 27. Mother’s cross-appeal challenges the trial court’s exercise of its “wide discretion” in considering the evidence submitted by the parties and creating the visitation schedule. Atwood , 143 Vt. at 300, 465 A.2d at 1355. Her challenge fails, because “it is for the trial court to weigh the evidence, and we defer to its judgment on appeal.” LeBlanc , 2014 VT 65, ¶ 26 (citing Hanson-Metayer , 2013 VT 29, ¶ 12). ¶ 28. In its entry order denying mother’s motion to amend judgment, the trial court acknowledged that achieving a fifty–fifty parent–child contact schedule, while in the child’s best interests, is “problematic.” Nevertheless, the trial court devised its order in a way that allows the child to spend an equal amount of time with each parent. The trial court determined that a week-on-week-off schedule would be inappropriate because—given the child’s age—the time she would be separated from one parent while staying with the other would be too long. In explaining its reasons for rejecting an alternate schedule that mother proposed, the trial court determined that the proposed schedule would involve too many transitions, especially considering its finding that the parties have difficulty communicating with each other. Under mother’s proposed schedule, there would be sixteen transitions in an eight-week period; under the trial court’s schedule, there are only fourteen. It was within the trial court’s discretion to determine that minimizing the number of scheduled transitions outweighs mother’s arguments about her work schedule, which rely upon evidence that the trial court did not give great weight. The record reasonably supports the rationale underlying the trial court’s ordered schedule, and so we are satisfied that the order was within its discretion. Affirmed as to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities, the parent–child contact order, and the award of retirement assets; reversed as to the application of a 6% hypothetical real-estate commission in calculating the amount of equity over $220,000 to which father is entitled in the event that mother decides to refinance . FOR THE COURT: