Larry Fenter v. Rebecca Brown
2016-026
Vt.Jul 14, 2016Background
- Father (Larry Fenter) initiated parentage proceedings; after reconciliation earlier, he later sought determination of parental rights and responsibilities (PRR) and parent-child contact (PCC).
- Parties had an on/off relationship; mother was primary caregiver for daughter S.F.; mother more involved in S.F.’s education and daily care.
- Father worked variable shifts, lived with a new partner in a one-bedroom apartment where child sleeping/household arrangements concerned the court.
- The family court awarded mother sole legal and physical PRR and continued a PCC schedule (every other Friday–Monday and Wednesday evenings), plus holiday and vacation provisions.
- Trial court included a condition barring father from working during his PCC time (except during agreed vacations) due to concerns about prior excessive work and caregiving availability.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) PCC schedule did not maximize his time, (2) the no-work restriction was improper, and (3) he was wrongly prevented from testifying in rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCC schedule violated public policy favoring maximum contact (15 V.S.A. § 650) | Father: He has a loving, involved relationship; court should award the 50/50 time he requested | Mother: Court must tailor contact to child’s best interests given housing and educational involvement concerns | Court: No abuse of discretion; statute does not mandate equal time; schedule reasonable given father's housing and limited educational involvement |
| Whether court erred by prohibiting father from working during PCC time (except vacations) | Father: Restriction unrelated to fitness; unnecessary because he changed work schedule | Mother: Condition justified by father’s history of excessive work and concerns about who would care for child during visits | Court: Struck provision — no findings showing restriction clearly served child’s best interests; condition was clearly unreasonable |
| Whether exclusion of father’s second rebuttal testimony denied fair presentation | Father: Would have shown Facebook messages about child’s health, proving involvement | Mother: Trial court discretion to control witness recall; relevance limited | Court: Even if discretion abused, no prejudice; excluded evidence would not have affected outcome focused on housing and education involvement |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding sole legal/physical PRR to mother | Father: Greater contact deserved given his relationship and parenting | Mother: Mother is primary caregiver, better positioned to meet child’s developmental needs | Court: Affirmed sole PRR to mother as best for child based on primary caregiving, living stability, and educational involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleverly v. Cleverly, 151 Vt. 351 (Vt. 1989) (appellate standard for reviewing visitation discretion)
- Miller v. Smith, 187 Vt. 574 (Vt. 2009) (trial court may impose visitation conditions when required by child’s best interests)
- Palmer v. Palmer, 138 Vt. 412 (Vt. 1980) (court’s visitation-condition discretion will be reversed if clearly unreasonable)
- Meyncke v. Meyncke, 186 Vt. 571 (Vt. 2009) (disagreement with trial court’s weighing of custody evidence does not establish abuse of discretion)
- Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer, 193 Vt. 490 (Vt. 2013) (deference to family court factfinding and credibility determinations in custody cases)
- LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 197 Vt. 17 (Vt. 2014) (rejecting claim that statutory policy mandates equal parental time)
- S. Burlington Sch. Dist. v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33 (Vt. 1980) (trial court discretion over recall of witnesses)