179 A.3d 173
Vt.2017Background
- Mother (custodial parent with sole physical rights) sought to relocate from Vermont to Staten Island, NY after marrying and proposed a new parent-child contact schedule; father opposed and sought custody.
- Family court found mother’s move was a substantial, unanticipated change in circumstances but concluded the move ‘‘was clearly not in [the child’s] best interest.’n
- The court retained mother’s physical rights and responsibilities but refused to modify the existing parent-child contact order, effectively barring relocation without mutual agreement.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court must modify custody/contact after finding a substantial change, the court undervalued her primary-caregiver role, and some findings lacked record support.
- The Supreme Court held the family court applied the wrong analytic framework: it should decide which custodial arrangement best serves the child in light of the relocation, not simply prohibit the move while keeping custody with the moving parent.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may keep physical custody with a relocating custodial parent but deny contact changes so as to bar the move | Court must modify custody/contact consistent with a found substantial change; mother should be free to relocate if custody remains with her | Court argued the move was not in the child’s best interest and thus should be prevented | Reversed: court must decide which custodial assignment serves the child given relocation, not prohibit the move while retaining custody with the mover |
| Proper analytic framework after a relocation change | Use two-step test: (1) show substantial, unanticipated change; (2) modify custody/contact if in child’s best interests | Same facts but court focused on whether move itself was in child’s best interests | Held that the family court applied the wrong inquiry and must reassess custody/contact under the correct two-step test |
| Weight of primary-caregiver status | Mother is primary caregiver; this should weigh in favor of maintaining her custody if best for child | Father emphasized child’s strong ties in Vermont and reduced contact if move occurs | Court erred in insufficiently applying the custodial deference principle; primary-caregiver role is relevant but not dispositive |
| Scope of parent-child contact orders after relocation | If custody remains with mover, court cannot keep prior contact order that effectively prevents relocation; it must craft a feasible contact schedule | Father urged maintaining prior contact to preserve relationships and community ties | Held court must fashion a new parent-child contact schedule consistent with the custodial determination and child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Schenck, 614 A.2d 786 (Vt. 1992) (custodial parent has deference on residence decisions; court may not prohibit move while retaining custody)
- McCart v. McCart, 697 A.2d 353 (Vt. 1997) (reversing order that maintained custody with mother but barred relocation; court must decide custodial assignment in light of move)
- Hawkes v. Spence, 878 A.2d 273 (Vt. 2005) (amount of rights exercised by each parent is a critical factor in relocation analysis)