Moreau v. Sylvester, Sylvester v. Moreau
196 Vt. 183
| Vt. | 2014Background
- Moreau seeks custody and parentage of plaintiff's children (not biologically related) and visitation, while the Caledonia court grants an RFA order restricting contact.
- He previously played a significant father-figure role and lived with the children at times, though he is not their biological father.
- In March 2012, Moreau and a friend visited the mother’s home at 2 a.m. on two occasions, leading to fears of imminent harm and the temporary RFA order.
- The Washington family court later dismissed Moreau’s emergency petition for visitation and a parentage claim as lacking any legal relationship to the children.
- This appeal concerns whether equity or statutory framework allows a de facto or nontraditional parent to obtain standing in custody/parentage/visitation proceedings.
- The majority holds Vermont law does not recognize a broad de facto parent doctrine absent statutory authorization, affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Vermont allow de facto parent standing? | Moreau should be recognized as a de facto parent entitled to custody/visitation. | Equity does not create standing; no statutory basis for de facto parentage. | No; de facto parent standing not recognized; dismissal affirmed. |
| Is Miller-Jenkins or Titchenal controlling to permit parentage outside biological/legal ties? | Miller-Jenkins supports nonbiological parental rights; expand beyond biology. | Miller-Jenkins does not apply here; limits are statutory and context-specific. | Not controlling; no broad expansion to de facto parentage. |
| Did the family court err in denying relief-from-abuse/visitation based on lack of parentage? | RFA and related orders should consider a de facto parent relationship. | RFA relief is separate from resolving custody/parentage; no jurisdiction to adjudicate parentage here. | RFA decision affirmed; the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve parentage without a statutory basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 180 Vt. 441 (2006 VT 78) (nonbiological partner can be a parent under evolving statutory framework)
- Titchenal v. Dexter, 166 Vt. 373 (1997 VT) (equitable jurisdiction not recognized for de facto parents absent statute)
- In re L.B., 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005) (de facto/psychological parent factors adopt a Washington framework)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights need careful application; overbroad third-party visitation limits struck)
- Columbia v. Lawton, 193 Vt. 165 (2013 VT) (parentage status guided by multiple factors beyond biology)
- Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514 (1998 VT) (established parent-child relationship can matter in custody/parentage analysis)
- Debra H. v. Janice R., 930 N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 2010) (consideration of parental rights for nonbiological parents in some jurisdictions)