Opinion
Supreme Court DOCKET NO. 2012-089
08-31-2012
Misty Bowen v. Terrel Spearman
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
ENTRY ORDER
APPEALED FROM:
Superior Court, Chittenden Unit,
Family Division
DOCKET NO. 661-8-10 Cndm
Trial Judge: A. Gregory Rainville
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Father appeals pro se from an order of the superior court, family division, modifying parental rights and responsibilities and parent-child contact for the parties' three-year-old daughter. We affirm.
Pursuant to a parentage and parental rights order issued in October 2010, father was awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities for the parties' daughter, born in February 2010, and mother was granted substantial parent-child contact. The record discloses that the parties thereafter engaged in frequent disputes involving claims by mother that father was withholding or interfering with parent-child contact. Following a hearing on a modification motion in March 2011, the court continued custody with father but warned that it would consider changing custody if father failed to allow contact with mother. In November 2011, the court issued a similar order in response to a motion to modify, noting mother's continued concerns about father's compliance and warning that if she reported further problems the court would promptly schedule a hearing to consider changing custody.
Following a report of further problems, the court held an evidentiary hearing on February 28, 2012. Mother was present in court and father appeared by telephone. Mother testified that father had failed to appear at the agreed drop-off and pick-up location, the Essex police station, on at least three occasions during the last month in retaliation for an argument with mother. Father denied the allegation and claimed that mother had failed to show. He asserted that the police could verify his presence, but acknowledged that he had no evidence to support the claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued oral and written findings, determining that father's version of events was not credible and that he had violated court orders specifying the time and location for transferring the child. The court concluded that father's behavior constituted a substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, that he had intentionally interfered with mother's role as a parent, and that the child's best interests warranted a transfer of custody to mother. The court modified the child custody order accordingly, and granted father visitation on weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. This appeal followed.
Father asserts on appeal that mother lied at the hearing, that he appeared at the police station as required, and that the police can verify his claim. Our review is limited. "In general, we defer to family court findings of fact." Chickanosky v. Chickanosky, 2011 VT 110, ¶ 14. Because of its unique position as trier of fact, "the family court alone may evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the weight evidence should be afforded," and we therefore uphold the court's findings unless clearly erroneous, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregarding modifying evidence. Id. The findings will stand if any credible evidence supports them. Id. In the event of a change of circumstances, the court similarly enjoys "broad discretion to determine the child's best interests." Id.
Assessed in this light, we discern no basis to disturb the judgment. The family court was entitled to credit mother's testimony and disbelieve father's and to find, accordingly, that father had violated court orders and interfered with mother's relationship with the child. Father cites no record evidence to show that these findings were unsupported or clearly erroneous. Based on its findings, the court was also well within its discretion in concluding that there had been a substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, and that the child's best interests required a modification of custody. See Renaud v. Renaud, 168 Vt. 306, 309 (1998) (recognizing that conduct by one parent which interferes with child's relationship with the other may be grounds for denial or change of custody).
Affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice
______________________
Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice
______________________
Beth Robinson, Associate Justice