Michele L. Wright v. Dean J. Kemp
207 A.3d 1021
Vt.2019Background
- Parents shared joint physical custody under a 2012 family‑division order; mother had primary legal rights and the parties were required to mediate parenting disputes.
- In July 2017 father posted negative Facebook comments about mother’s husband; daughter (then 15) saw the posts, became distraught, blocked father, and wrote him a letter asking him not to contact her.
- Father moved to enforce visitation; mother moved to modify custody and to allow daughter to end contact if she felt uncomfortable and to eliminate required overnights.
- After mediation failed, the court appointed a guardian ad litem, held hearings (including an in‑chambers interview of daughter with appointed counsel), and found daughter’s reluctance was genuine and not the product of parental alienation.
- The family court awarded mother sole physical rights and responsibilities but ordered that father may have contact only as the daughter requested; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Kemp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was it proper for the court to call the minor child to testify? | Daughter’s testimony was necessary and otherwise unavailable to resolve whether she authored the letter and to assess her wishes. | Father claimed potential manipulation of the child and objected to her testifying about underlying disputes. | Father failed to preserve the manipulation objection; court complied with statutory requirements and appointment of counsel — no reversible error. |
| Was modification of physical custody warranted? | The parties’ relationship had broken down; daughter’s emotional needs favored placement with mother who supported therapy. | Father contended mother alienated the child and was unfit to be sole physical custodian. | Court’s findings supported awarding mother sole physical rights and responsibilities; affirmed. |
| Was it lawful to place parent‑child contact entirely under the child’s control (effectively terminating contact)? | Mother argued daughter’s expressed wishes justified limiting contact to what daughter requested. | Father argued the order improperly terminated his contact without clear and convincing evidence and provided no path to reengagement. | Reversed: indefinite suspension of contact requires clear and convincing evidence of harm; record did not meet that standard; remanded for a contact plan with conditions and a roadmap for reunification. |
| Did the court violate due process in restricting visitation? | N/A (subject framed by court standards) | Father asserted due process required higher proof before ending contact. | Court reaffirmed Mullin standard: suspension or termination of contact requires clear and convincing evidence; family court must craft reasonable, attainable conditions and timelines for reengagement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. Cameron, 398 A.2d 294 (court may call minor to testify in custody proceedings if necessary and probative outweighs harm)
- Mullin v. Phelps, 647 A.2d 714 (indefinite suspension of parent‑child contact requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Gabriel v. Pritchard, 788 A.2d 1 (affirming suspension of contact where evidence met clear and convincing standard)
- Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (appellate review standard: reverse if findings unsupported by evidence)