Renaud v. Renaud – Child Custody – Visitation Rights
Renaud v. Renaud, 168 Vt. 306, 721 A.2d 463 (1998).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved an appeal from a determination of sole custody in the context of a divorce.
FACTS: H and W were married and had one son in 1994. Two years later H told W that he wanted a divorce and moved in with a coworker and her children. W and their child remained in the marital home.
Both parties worked full time. Prior to the separation both parents shared in the upbringing of their son. Soon after H moved out W began to impede H’s contact with their child forcing H to file numerous petitions to establish a temporary visitation schedule. W then filed petitions claiming that H had sexually abused the child which further disrupted H’s contact with the child. None of the abuse allegations were substantiated and all of W’s petitions were ultimately dismissed. The court chastised W in strong language and found that W’s influence over the boy had in fact greatly impacted the boy’s relationship with his father. However, in spite of W’s conduct the court still awarded her custody of the child because W had sought counseling to overcome her emotional problems and to repair the damage suffered by her son. H appealed the court’s decision as a patent abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: May a court award custody of a child to a parent if it is shown that that parent will attempt to destroy the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A court may award custody of a child to a parent if it is shown that that parent will attempt to destroy the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The most important consideration in any custody decision is the best interests of the child. When evidence shows continual and unmitigated conduct by the primary caregiver designed to poison a child’s relationship with the other parent, a change of custody from the offending parent may well be in the child’s long term best interests. Under these facts, as far as the child abuse petitions were concerned, the evidence shows that W did not act precipitously in filing the petitions and she sought expert guidance and assurance that what she was doing was correct. The record has evidence that W was not alienating the child from the father or that her concerns were wholly unreasonable. The trial court also found that W’s distress was transient in nature. The court also awarded the father fairly liberal visitation.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.