Miller v. Smith
187 Vt. 574, 989 A.2d 537, 2009 VT 120 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will not compel a non-custodial parent to take a child to an extracurricular activity during their court-ordered visitation time, as the non-custodial parent retains the right to decide how to spend that time, absent a showing that such a restriction is required for the child's best interest.
Facts:
- A divorced couple, Mother and Father, have a six-year-old daughter.
- Mother was awarded sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities for the child.
- Father has a court-ordered visitation schedule that grants him an additional overnight visit on a Tuesday once per month.
- Mother enrolled the child in a gymnastics class that takes place during Father's scheduled Tuesday visitation.
- Mother demanded that Father be required to take the child to this gymnastics class during his parenting time.
Procedural Posture:
- Father filed a motion in the family court (trial court) to enforce a provision in the divorce decree granting him an additional overnight visit.
- The family court granted Father's motion and clarified the parent-child contact schedule.
- Mother then filed a motion in the same court asking for an order clarifying that Father must take the child to her scheduled activities during his visitation.
- The family court denied Mother's motion, ruling it would not referee the details of the child's activities during Father's time.
- Mother (appellant) appealed the family court's denial to the Vermont Supreme Court (highest state court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a family court err by refusing to order a non-custodial parent to take the parties' child to an extracurricular activity, chosen by the custodial parent, during the non-custodial parent's court-ordered visitation period?
Opinions:
Majority - Unsigned
No, the family court did not err by refusing to compel the non-custodial parent to take the child to the extracurricular activity. A court's role is to allocate blocks of time for parent-child contact, not to micromanage how that time is spent. Allowing the custodial parent to dictate the child's activities during the non-custodial parent's time would reduce the non-custodial parent to a 'babysitting function' and undermine the legislative goal of ensuring children have maximum continuing contact with both parents. While a court can impose restrictions on visitation if clearly required by the child's best interests (e.g., for health or safety), scheduling recreational activities does not meet this standard. To rule otherwise would invite an 'endless stream of disputes' over the value of various activities, a role the court is unwilling to assume.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a non-custodial parent's visitation time is their own to manage, protecting their parental autonomy. It establishes a strong precedent against the custodial parent's ability to control or schedule activities during the other parent's court-ordered time, thereby preventing visitation from becoming a mere 'babysitting function'. The ruling also promotes judicial economy by discouraging litigation over minor disagreements regarding a child's recreational life. It places a high bar for court intervention, requiring a clear showing that a restriction is necessary for the child's best interest, not just a matter of parental preference.
