Parker v. Parker, 45 A.3d 48

Mother sought relocation to Buffalo, NY with the three children and filed motions to modify parental rights and for relief from abuse; the latter was denied.
Family court granted father sole physical rights and a 50/50 contact schedule, citing a dysfunctional communications history but recognizing shared legal rights.
The court based the change on mother’s conditional plan to move, noting it would be effective only if court approved and that the move would affect parent-child contact.
The court concluded relocation was not in the children’s best interests and would undermine maximum parent-child contact, thus awarding sole physical rights to father.
Neither party requested more detailed findings; the order stated requests for further findings could be made, but the summary decision remained in effect.
On appeal, mother challenged only the transfer of physical parental rights, arguing the court relied solely on relocation to find changed circumstances and erred in its best-interest analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a valid threshold showing of changed circumstances?	Mother contends relocation alone cannot be automatic change.	Father argues relocation, along with ongoing disputes, supports change.	Remand for additional findings; current record incomplete on why changed circumstances exist beyond relocation.
Did the court adequately support its best-interests determination?	Mother asserts court relied only on relocation, ignoring other § 665(b) factors.	Father asserts the court’s reasoning, including alienation concerns, supports transfer.	Findings insufficient to show how factors informed the decision; remand required.
Were Rule 52 findings required and adequately addressed?	Mother did not request explicit findings; argues insufficient rationale without numbered findings.	Father notes Rule 52 applies and that the court’s on-its-face reasoning constitutes findings.	Court’s on-its-face findings are inadequate for review; remand to develop proper findings.

Maurer v. Maurer, 2005 VT 26 (2005) (findings made on court's own initiative must support the custody decision)
Mayer v. Mayer, 144 Vt. 214 (1984) (need for adequate factual basis to support custody modification)
Jensen v. Jensen, 139 Vt. 551 (1981) (reversals when court fails to identify facts supporting modification)
Sochin v. Sochin, 2005 VT 36 (2005) (§ 665(b) factor consideration requires no specific disclosure format)
Hawkes v. Spence, 2005 VT 57 (2005) (relocation alone is not per se change in circumstances; factors matter)
Helm v. Helm, 148 Vt. 336 (1987) (remarks on findings by court on its own initiative treated as findings)