Court Opinion

ID: 9728614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:12:34.963178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.283459
License: Public Domain

*93Dooley, J.,
dissenting. Anybody who reads the majority opinion carefully will recognize that despite the remand, the Court has ruled that custody of Ashley Nickerson must be awarded to defendant as a matter of law. Although the opinion suggests that the defect in the trial court decision is the failure to explain its rationale, I think the opinion can be understood only as a holding that defendant remained the primary-care-provider. Once the rule of law is extracted from the majority opinion, it is impossible for plaintiff to prevail.
While I believe this result is unjustified in this case, it is a hallmark of a greater error in the majority opinion. The majority opinion is in fact a trial court opinion. Most of the “facts” stated in the first few pages were not found by the trial court, and some are disputed. The opinion narrowly construes the trial court decision in order to criticize it. Little discretion is accorded to the trial judge in her evaluation of the evidence. Moreover, the “error” found by the majority involves an issue not raised below. In short, this Court has now “tried” this case on theories different from those presented to the trial court and awarded custody of the child based on its fact-finding and evaluation of the evidence.
I do not believe it just to abandon the proper role of appellate review even where the hindsight of the Justices of this Court shows we would have reached a different result. Such appellate decisionmaking of this kind inevitably makes bad law that haunts us in the future when we try to stay within our proper role.
It is helpful at the outset to examine the procedural posture of the case. Not only did defendant leave the child with plaintiff and agree that he should have custody, she did not contest custody when plaintiff filed for divorce in 1989. In January of 1990, she filed a counterclaim requesting that plaintiff receive custody of Ashley and she have visitation rights. It was not until March, shortly before the divorce hearing, that she changed her mind and sought custody.
Both parties submitted trial memoranda of law dedicated almost entirely to the effect of defendant’s lesbian relationship on the custody question. Plaintiff briefly stated that the primary-care-provider factor, as specified in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(6), was in his favor. Even more briefly, defendant stated that the evidence *94would show that she was the children’s primary-care-provider. During the trial, the trial judge gave a “weather report” based on the evidence to that point. She indicated that she was leaning to keeping the status quo because of the disruption of changing custody. Despite this statement, defendant never addressed the primary-care-provider question in her closing argument. Neither party submitted requests for findings of fact. There were no relevant post-trial motions.
Except in very exceptional cases, we have insisted that issues of law be raised in the trial court before they will be considered by this Court. I have no doubt that if defendant had raised the application of the primary-care-provider factor to a situation where the custodian of the child at the time of trial is not the person who was the primary-care-provider prior to separation, the trial court would have resolved it directly. Instead, this issue is resolved for the first time on appeal. It is particularly ironic that the majority faults the trial court for not fully explaining its decision when defendant failed to take the minimal steps necessary to obtain an explanation. Without preservation and any help from the lawyers, the trial judge is left with the unmeetable burden of explaining everything an appellate court might want to know in response to creative new arguments raised by the losing party for the first time on appeal.
In Varnum v. Varnum, 155 Vt. 376, 382-83, 586 A.2d 1107, 1110-11 (1990), a custody case where the claim on appeal was improper consideration of the mother’s religious beliefs in violation of her constitutional rights, we emphasized the critical interest of the children in family stability that is undermined by treating issues for the first time on appeal. After balancing the mother’s constitutional rights against the interests of the children, we held: “Even with the important rights and interests defendant seeks to vindicate, we think the balance tips decidedly in favor of enforcing rules of preservation to avoid the impact of lengthy delays on the well-being of the children.” Id. at 383, 586 A.2d at 1111. This is not a case where appellant is excused from preservation because she was unaware of the trial court’s error until the decision was rendered. The court’s position was crystal clear in its “weather report,” and appellant failed to respond to that position with the arguments she makes here. As a result, we are abandoning the requirement of preser*95vation. Almost two years after the trial court’s decision, this Court will overturn the custody award based on an issue never presented to the trial court. I cannot believe that the trauma to the child is outweighed by the possible gain of a better custodian.
Even if there had been preservation, I could not accept the majority opinion. While couched in language that criticizes the trial court for failure to explain its decision, the majority’s reasoning on the primary-care-provider argument is really that the trial court improperly found plaintiff to be the primary-care-provider and, thus, improperly weighed that factor in his favor. Instead, the majority concludes that defendant was the primary-care-provider and never lost that status. Thus, in the majority’s view, this very important factor should weigh heavily in defendant’s favor.
I find the majority’s analysis of both the facts and the law to be in error. The determination of which parent is the primary-care-provider is primarily one of fact subject to the clearly erroneous test for setting it aside on appeal. See Bissonette v. Gambrel, 152 Vt. 67, 70, 564 A.2d 600, 601 (1989). As the majority recognizes, we have not accorded a custodial presumption in favor of the primary-care-provider. Instead, we accord great weight to this factor with the exact weight to be determined based on the likely effect of a change of custodian on the child. See Harris v. Harris, 149 Vt. 410, 418-19, 546 A.2d 208, 214 (1988).
Both the plaintiff and defendant used a child psychologist as an expert witness. Each respective psychologist interviewed the child and the parent who hired the psychologist, and observed the interaction between the parent and child. Only plaintiff’s expert, however, directly responded to the primary-care-provider issue. He found a “mutual bond” between plaintiff and the child and that plaintiff “is a real psychological parent.” He went on to find that the child was flourishing in plaintiff’s care, and that in the absence of a compelling circumstance, he would not recommend changing custodian. He found no compelling circumstance for a change of custodian. In addition to the expert’s testimony, plaintiff testified that he performed the day-to-day functions of the care provider. Other witnesses who observed plaintiff and the child together provided similar testimony.
*96Defendant’s expert evidence was in some ways comparable. The psychologist found defendant to be a fit parent with a good relationship to the child. The expert offered no opinion, however, on who should have custody and no opinion on the effect of a change of custodian at the time of trial.
It is clear that much of the majority’s criticism of the trial court is based on the majority’s reevaluation of the evidence and separate fact-finding. Relying primarily on the expert evidence, the trial court found that plaintiff had become the primary-care-provider and gave that factor the weight recommended by plaintiff’s expert witness.
The majority is giving different weight to the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, as shown by its comments on page 92 of the majority opinion.* It is, of course, settled law that the weight to be assigned to evidence is for the trial court, not this Court. The evaluation of the expert testimony is not the only area where the majority has reweighed the evidence. Another critical example is the statement of the majority that the child “was transferred from the almost full-time care of her mother to the full-time care of baby-sitters, husband’s co-workers, and husband, who often took her to work.” This statement is wildly exaggerated. It fails to take into account that plaintiff’s work schedule allowed for two full days of availability, Sunday and Monday, separate from the day, Saturday, that the child is with defendant. It further ignores that defendant works part time and while plaintiff and defendant were together, the child was often with the same baby-sitter she is with now. Thus, the “full-time care of baby-sitters” is actually three or four afternoons a week, at least part of which also occurred before the separation. Obviously, the trial court did not see a flexible forty-hour work schedule as the same impediment to good parenting as the majority sees it.
*97The majority opinion presents three interrelated criticisms of the trial court’s application of the law. None are warranted. The first is that the trial court “apparently accepted a per se rule that the parent with physical custody at the time of the divorce hearing is the primary-care-provider.” The heart of the trial court’s analysis was:
Both Plaintiff and Defendant point to minor shortcomings in one another’s parenting skills. However, neither party has given a compelling reason to alter the present custodial arrangement. Plaintiff and Defendant are fit parents who can provide for their children’s needs. The children have adjusted to their parents’ separation and more change in their lives would be disruptive. Ashley, in particular, has strong ties to the area in which she presently resides.
As noted above, the “compelling reason” analysis was urged by plaintiff’s expert witness. There is nothing of a per se rule in this analysis. If there had been no expert testimony in the trial court, or if defendant had seriously contested the primary-care-provider issue in the terms it is raised here, one could understand the appearance of a per se rule. In context, it is a mischaracterization of the trial court conclusion.
The second asserted error, and the one that the majority identifies as the ground for its reversal, is that the trial court failed to indicate whether the proper analysis was used and thus “we are left to speculate as to the reasons the court favored husband over wife with respect to Ashley’s placement.” We have occasionally used this rationale where we cannot discern why the trial court rendered its decision or there is an internal inconsistency in the explanation. See, e.g., Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466, 472, 555 A.2d 382, 386 (1988); McCormick v. McCormick, 150 Vt. 431, 438, 553 A.2d 1098, 1103 (1988). It is a misuse of this rationale to apply it to a case where the trial court is crystal clear on what was decided, and why, but the majority disagrees with the decision. The only thing we are left to speculate on in this case is why the trial court didn’t anticipate the majority’s view of the law.
If we use the “anti-speculation” rationale in a case like this, we will inevitably be left to speculate on what the law is after this opinion. At one point, the majority opinion is clear that it is irrelevant that one spouse becomes the primary-care-provider *98after the other spouse, who was the primary-care-provider, leaves the home. Later in the opinion, the trial court is directed to engage in some sort of weighing process, balancing the preseparation care-giving against the post-separation care-giving to determine the “overall primary-care-provider.” I doubt that trial courts would be able to figure out how to award points to implement this legalistic process. It certainly will not be obvious how this process is better in determining the best interest of the child than the approach used by the trial court in this case. None of the justifications for a rule giving special weight to the primary-care-provider are advanced by this process. See Crippen, Stumbling Beyond Best Interests of the Child: Reexamining Child Custody Standard-Setting in the Wake of Minnesota’s Four Year Experiment with the Primary Caretaker Preference, 75 Minn. L. Rev. 427, 440-52 (1990) (purpose of primary caretaker preference is to protect parent-child bonding, promote certainty in custody adjudication and preserve gender-neutrality and the general best interests of the child). While I strongly disagree with a rule that ignores post-separation care provision, I find it far preferable to the mire of weighing unlike things with the risk that carefully considered custody determinations will be overturned because the legalistic equation was not accurate. I fear that the real result of this opinion, and its determination that the trial court failed to explain its decision, will be a plethora of appeals to make us explain our decision. See id. at 452 (primary caretaker preference in Minnesota, since abandoned by legislative action, “caused an explosion of litigation”).
The third error involves the legal principles controlling the determination of the primary-care-provider in a case like this. The real holding of this case is that a parent who leaves the home without notice and without continuing to be the primary-care-provider is, as a matter of law, entitled to primary-care-provider status in the custody analysis. I believe this position is rigid and inappropriate.
Defendant not only voluntarily relinquished custody to plaintiff, she failed to contest custody until shortly before the divorce hearing. She gave no reason for failing to take Ashley with her to her new home. As a result, the primary-care-provider role shifted to plaintiff, and the child adjusted to that situ*99ation to the point that it would be traumatic to make a further change.
The majority gives one reason why it is important to continue the legal status of the primary-care-provider with the parent who leaves the home despite the change in the status in fact. It should not be the controlling consideration. In determining custody, we are governed by the best interest of the child and must look at the custody determination from the child’s perspective. See Price v. Price, 149 Vt. 118, 125, 541 A.2d 79, 83 (1987). In a battle between fit and loving parents, the child’s interest is in stability and continuity of relationships and surroundings. Any rule that allows a child, having been left in the custody of one parent, to be reclaimed at will by the other parent despite the bonding that has occurred and the psychological damage to the child is a bad rule.
Ironically, the case that the majority criticizes as “rigid,” Efaw v. Efaw, 400 S.E.2d 599 (W. Va. 1990), is an example of the kind of flexible approach that is far preferable to the majority’s approach. Although West Virginia is now the only state that gives custodial preference to the primary-care-provider who is fit, irrespective of other factors, it is flexible in determining whether either parent achieves the preference. The facts in Efaw are similar to those here in that the primary-care-provider, who was the mother, left the children when she moved in with another man. The father then became the primary-care-provider and remained so until the divorce hearing. The court found that neither parent was entitled to the preference under the primary-care-provider rule and that custody must be determined based on the best interest of the children. It awarded custody to the father, in large part because “[t]he children have developed a stable relationship with their father and grandparents .... To remove the children from such an established environment would jeopardize their emotional stability . . . .” Id. at 603. See also Mills v. Gorrick, 381 S.E.2d 273, 276-77 (W. Va. 1989) (trial court has discretion to award custody to father where evidence supports conclusion that wife intentionally relinquished custody to him in order to maintain a relationship with another man); Dempsey v. Dempsey, 306 S.E.2d 230, 231-32 (W. Va. 1983) (where mother had relinquished care to father *100shortly before divorce action, court could find that no primary-care-provider presumption arose and award custody to husband based on the best interest of the child).
Efaw is consistent with how other courts have handled a shift of primary-care-provider. See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647, 648-49 (Utah 1988). It is also how the trial court handled this case. A fair evaluation of the trial court’s decision shows that it is not based on a rigid application of the primary-care-provider rule. Instead, it is based on the expert testimony of plaintiff’s psychologist, which the court chose to believe and follow. The decision should be affirmed on that basis.
Virtually all custody decisions emphasize that the trial court has broad discretion in custody cases and its custody award cannot be overturned unless its “discretion was erroneously exercised, or exercised upon unfounded considerations, or to an extent clearly unreasonable in light of the evidence.” Peckham v. Peckham, 149 Vt. 388, 389, 543 A.2d 267, 268 (1988). The majority states the standard of review on appeal, but emphasizes all the exceptions to the point where they justify what is essentially de novo review of both the facts and the law. If the majority followed the well-established standard of review, it would have to affirm the custody award in this case as within the trial court’s broad discretion. Accordingly, I dissent.

 If I understand the majority opinion, it is criticizing the expert because he did not examine the relationship between the child and appellant prior to the separation. The expert considered the additional inquiry irrelevant because he had concluded that the child had bonded to the appellee and custody should not be changed without a compelling interest. This is not an issue of “the performance of one parent.” It is instead a child-focused inquiry on the effect of a change of custodian, exactly the reason for giving weight to the primary-care-provider in the first instance.