2017 VT 107
Vt. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Original parent-child contact (PCC) order issued in July 2011 gave mother sole physical and legal parental rights and responsibilities and gave father substantial parent-child contact (about 40% time).
- Parties filed numerous motions and appeals; an amended PCC order issued in April 2013 required father to give two weeks’ notice for out-of-state travel.
- Mother moved (Sept. 2016) to clarify whether father could: take the child on private aircraft without consent; sign the child up for activities; and sign consent/release/waiver forms.
- After an Oct. 26, 2016 hearing, the superior court found no real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances but nonetheless ordered: (1) father’s time be interrupted so child spends Mother’s Day with mother if child is in Vermont with father that day; (2) mother have sole authority to make transportation/travel decisions; and (3) mother have sole discretion to sign releases/waivers (subject to not unreasonably withholding consent).
- Father appealed; the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the superior court improperly modified the PCC order and unlawfully infringed father’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Patnode's Argument | Urette's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior court could require interruption of father’s time on Mother’s Day | Court should order child to spend Mother’s Day with mother when feasible; clarification needed | Change from discretionary "if possible" to mandatory "shall" unlawfully reduced father’s time without finding changed circumstances | Reversed: converting "if possible" to mandatory scheduling was a modification requiring a finding of real, substantial, and unanticipated change, which court did not make |
| Whether mother may have sole authority over transportation/travel decisions | Mother (as sole legal custodian) should control travel and require father to get approval for private transport | Father has responsibility and right to arrange travel per original/amended orders; court lacked basis to strip that role absent changed circumstances | Reversed: order granting mother sole authority over travel was a modification of father's rights and improper without required finding |
| Whether mother may have sole authority to sign releases/waivers for child’s activities | Mother should sign releases as legal custodian; court can require consent not be unreasonably withheld | Father, during his custodial time, has right to sign releases for activities occurring on his time; unilateral veto improperly converts father’s time into passive care | Reversed: giving mother unilateral veto (even "not unreasonably withheld") infringed father's parenting rights; father retains authority to sign releases for activities on his time |
| Role of court in mediating disputes about activity approvals | Court can impose reasonableness standard to prevent harm | Placing court as ongoing referee for disputes over reasonable withholding is inappropriate and impractical | Court should not delegate continuous supervisory role; father may make activity decisions on his time absent evidence he is unfit |
Key Cases Cited
- Patnode v. Urette, 196 A.3d 787 (Vt. 2014) (distinguishes modifications from clarifications to PCC orders)
- Groves v. Green, 154 A.3d 507 (Vt. 2016) (appellate standard: defer to family court absent unreasonable exercise of discretion)
- Siegel v. Misch, 939 A.2d 1023 (Vt. 2007) (statutory two-step test for modification: threshold change then best interests analysis)
- Miller v. Smith, 989 A.2d 537 (Vt. 2009) (custodial parent cannot unilaterally impose restrictions that reduce noncustodial parent’s time to mere babysitting)
- Gazo v. Gazo, 697 A.2d 342 (Vt. 1997) (recognizes sharing of responsibilities despite primary award of legal rights and responsibilities)