§ 665. Rights and responsibilities order; best interests of the child
(a) In an action under this chapter, the court shall make an order concerning parental
rights and responsibilities of any minor child of the parties. The court may order
parental rights and responsibilities to be divided or shared between the parents on
such terms and conditions as serve the best interests of the child. When the parents
cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall
award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.
(b) In making an order under this section, the court shall be guided by the best interests
of the child and shall consider at least the following factors:
(1) the relationship of the child with each parent and the ability and disposition of
each parent to provide the child with love, affection, and guidance;
(2) the ability and disposition of each parent to assure that the child receives adequate
food, clothing, medical care, other material needs, and a safe environment;
(3) the ability and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s present and future
developmental needs;
(4) the quality of the child’s adjustment to the child’s present housing, school, and
community and the potential effect of any change;
(5) the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship and frequent
and continuing contact with the other parent, including physical contact, except where
contact will result in harm to the child or to a parent;
(6) the quality of the child’s relationship with the primary care provider, if appropriate
given the child’s age and development;
(7) the relationship of the child with any other person who may significantly affect the
child;
(8) the ability and disposition of the parents to communicate, cooperate with each other,
and make joint decisions concerning the children where parental rights and responsibilities
are to be shared or divided; and
(9) evidence of abuse, as defined in section 1101 of this title, and the impact of the abuse on the child and on the relationship between the child
and the abusing parent.
(c) The court shall not apply a preference for one parent over the other because of the
sex of the child, the sex of a parent, or the financial resources of a parent.
(d) The court may order a parent who is awarded responsibility for a certain matter involving
a child’s welfare to inform the other parent when a major change in that matter occurs.
(e) The jurisdiction granted by this section shall be limited by the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, if another state has jurisdiction as provided in
that act. For the purposes of interpreting that act and any other provision of law
which refers to a custodial parent, including 13 V.S.A. § 2451, the parent with physical responsibility shall be considered the custodial parent.
(f) The State has a compelling interest in not forcing a victim of sexual assault or sexual
exploitation to continue an ongoing relationship with the perpetrator of the abuse.
Such continued interaction can have traumatic psychological effects on the victim,
making recovery more difficult, and negatively affect the victim’s ability to parent
and to provide for the best interests of the child. Additionally, the State recognizes
that a perpetrator may use the threat of pursuing parental rights and responsibilities
to coerce a victim into not reporting or not assisting in the prosecution of the perpetrator
for the sexual assault or sexual exploitation, or to harass, intimidate, or manipulate
the victim.
(1) The court may enter an order awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to
a parent and denying all parent-child contact with the other parent if the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the nonmoving parent was convicted of sexually
assaulting the moving parent and the child was conceived as a result of the sexual
assault, or that the nonmoving parent was convicted of human trafficking pursuant
to 13 V.S.A. § 2652, and the moving parent was the trafficked victim. As used in this subdivision, sexual
assault shall include sexual assault as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a), (b), (d), and (e), aggravated sexual assault as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3253, aggravated sexual assault of a child as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3253a, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 2602, and similar offenses in other jurisdictions.
(2) The court may enter an order awarding sole parental rights and responsibilities to
one parent and denying all parent-child contact between the other parent and a child
if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as
a result of the nonmoving parent sexually assaulting or sexually exploiting the moving
parent, or that the moving parent was trafficked by the nonmoving parent pursuant
to 13 V.S.A. § 2652 and the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that such an order is in the
best interests of the child. A conviction is not required under this subdivision,
and the court may consider other evidence of sexual assault or sexual exploitation
in making its determination. For purposes of this subdivision:
(A) sexual assault shall include sexual assault as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3252, aggravated sexual assault as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3253, aggravated sexual assault of a child as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3253a, lewd and lascivious conduct with a child as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 2602, and similar offenses in other jurisdictions; and
(B) sexual exploitation shall include sexual exploitation of an inmate as provided in
13 V.S.A. § 3257, sexual exploitation of a minor as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 3258, sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult as provided in 13 V.S.A. § 1379, and similar offenses in other jurisdictions.
(3) Issuance of an order pursuant to this subsection shall not affect the right of the
custodial parent to seek child support from the noncustodial parent.
(4) Upon issuance of a rights and responsibilities order pursuant to this subsection,
the court shall not issue a parent-child contact order and shall terminate any existing
parent-child contact order concerning the child and the nonmoving parent. An order
issued in accordance with this subdivision shall be permanent and shall not be subject
to modification. (Added 1985, No. 181 (Adj. Sess.), § 3; amended 1993, No. 228 (Adj. Sess.), § 6; 2011, No. 29, § 3; 2013, No. 197 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; 2017, No. 44, § 7, eff. May 23, 2017; 2017, No. 140 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. May 21, 2018.)
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). · cites it 19ד§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Knutsen v. CEGALIS, 2009 VT 110 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 20ד[1] In reaching this decision, the court weighed the nine factors for determining the best interests of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 665, and found that, although both parties could provide quality care for the child, ultimately the balance favored an award to father when the child…”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 16דAdoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Shea v. Metcalf, 712 A.2d 887 (Vt. 1998). · cites it 18דMother contends that (1) the family court's order divides legal rights and responsibilities in a manner not permitted under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), and (2) even if the statute authorizes such division, the family court abused its discretion in ordering the division and not awarding…”
Cloutier v. Blowers, 783 A.2d 961 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 12דAdoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Heidi Corcoran Wener v. Erik Wener, 2016 VT 109 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 11דShe argues that the court erred in finding a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that the decision to modify the extant custody agreement was not in the best interests of the child as required by 15 V.S.A. § 665. We affirm the court’s finding of…”
Harris v. Harris, 546 A.2d 208 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 9ד§ 652 — the predecessor statute to 15 V.S.A. § 665 — did “not specifically require the [trial] court to give special weight to the fact that one party has acted as the primary caretaker of the child.”
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2010 VT 98 (Vt. 2010). · cites it 8דIn accordance with 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), the court considered each of the nine statutory factors for determining parental rights and responsibilities with regard to IMJ.”
Nickerson v. Nickerson, 605 A.2d 1331 (Vt. 1992). · cites it 8דWhen the relevant legal criteria, among them the eight factors set out in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), are applied to the facts, it is important for the appellate court to know how the trial court weighed the facts and blended the standards to arrive at the conclusion.”
Andrew Alex Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton), 192 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018). · cites it 13דWhile this case predated the enactment of 15 V.S.A. § 665, the controlling standard in Miles, and subsequently, has always been the best interests of the child.”
Chase v. Bowen, 2008 VT 12 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 6דUnder 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), “[w]hen the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.”
Maurer v. Maurer, 2005 VT 26 (Vt. 2005). · cites it 6דWhen the family court finds that there has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, it must consider if a change in parental responsibilities is in a child's best interests.”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Shea v. Metcalf, 712 A.2d 887 (Vt. 1998). “Mother contends that (1) the family court's order divides legal rights and responsibilities in a manner not permitted under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), and (2) even if the statute authorizes such division, the family court abused its discretion in ordering the division and not awarding…”
Knutsen v. CEGALIS, 2009 VT 110 (Vt. 2009). “[1] In reaching this decision, the court weighed the nine factors for determining the best interests of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 665, and found that, although both parties could provide quality care for the child, ultimately the balance favored an award to father when the child…”
Chase v. Bowen, 2008 VT 12 (Vt. 2008). “Under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), “[w]hen the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 665(b) — 98 cases
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2010 VT 98 (Vt. 2010). “In accordance with 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), the court considered each of the nine statutory factors for determining parental rights and responsibilities with regard to IMJ.”
Harris v. Harris, 546 A.2d 208 (Vt. 1988). “§ 652 — the predecessor statute to 15 V.S.A. § 665 — did “not specifically require the [trial] court to give special weight to the fact that one party has acted as the primary caretaker of the child.”
Maurer v. Maurer, 2005 VT 26 (Vt. 2005). “When the family court finds that there has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, it must consider if a change in parental responsibilities is in a child's best interests.”
Cloutier v. Blowers, 783 A.2d 961 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Nickerson v. Nickerson, 605 A.2d 1331 (Vt. 1992). “When the relevant legal criteria, among them the eight factors set out in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), are applied to the facts, it is important for the appellate court to know how the trial court weighed the facts and blended the standards to arrive at the conclusion.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 665(b)(1) — 13 cases
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Andrew Alex Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton), 192 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018). “While this case predated the enactment of 15 V.S.A. § 665, the controlling standard in Miles, and subsequently, has always been the best interests of the child.”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Cloutier v. Blowers, 783 A.2d 961 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Heidi Corcoran Wener v. Erik Wener, 2016 VT 109 (Vt. 2016). “She argues that the court erred in finding a real, substantial, and unanticipated change in circumstances, and that the decision to modify the extant custody agreement was not in the best interests of the child as required by 15 V.S.A. § 665. We affirm the court’s finding of…”
Knutsen v. CEGALIS, 2009 VT 110 (Vt. 2009). “[1] In reaching this decision, the court weighed the nine factors for determining the best interests of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 665, and found that, although both parties could provide quality care for the child, ultimately the balance favored an award to father when the child…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 665(b)(4) — 12 cases
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Shea v. Metcalf, 712 A.2d 887 (Vt. 1998). “Mother contends that (1) the family court's order divides legal rights and responsibilities in a manner not permitted under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), and (2) even if the statute authorizes such division, the family court abused its discretion in ordering the division and not awarding…”
Knutsen v. CEGALIS, 2009 VT 110 (Vt. 2009). “[1] In reaching this decision, the court weighed the nine factors for determining the best interests of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 665, and found that, although both parties could provide quality care for the child, ultimately the balance favored an award to father when the child…”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Cloutier v. Blowers, 783 A.2d 961 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Nickerson v. Nickerson, 605 A.2d 1331 (Vt. 1992). “When the relevant legal criteria, among them the eight factors set out in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), are applied to the facts, it is important for the appellate court to know how the trial court weighed the facts and blended the standards to arrive at the conclusion.”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Maurer v. Maurer, 2005 VT 26 (Vt. 2005). “When the family court finds that there has been a real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances, it must consider if a change in parental responsibilities is in a child's best interests.”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2010 VT 98 (Vt. 2010). “In accordance with 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), the court considered each of the nine statutory factors for determining parental rights and responsibilities with regard to IMJ.”
Andrew Alex Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton), 192 A.3d 1257 (Vt. 2018). “While this case predated the enactment of 15 V.S.A. § 665, the controlling standard in Miles, and subsequently, has always been the best interests of the child.”
Harris v. Harris, 546 A.2d 208 (Vt. 1988). “§ 652 — the predecessor statute to 15 V.S.A. § 665 — did “not specifically require the [trial] court to give special weight to the fact that one party has acted as the primary caretaker of the child.”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Shea v. Metcalf, 712 A.2d 887 (Vt. 1998). “Mother contends that (1) the family court's order divides legal rights and responsibilities in a manner not permitted under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), and (2) even if the statute authorizes such division, the family court abused its discretion in ordering the division and not awarding…”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Chase v. Bowen, 2008 VT 12 (Vt. 2008). “Under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), “[w]hen the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.”
Cabot v. Cabot, 697 A.2d 644 (Vt. 1997). “§ 665(a), which states in part: "When the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent." As Tom and Ellen did not form an agreement to divide or share…”
Chase v. Bowen, 2008 VT 12 (Vt. 2008). “Under 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), “[w]hen the parties cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.”
Cloutier v. Blowers, 783 A.2d 961 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Spaulding v. Butler, 782 A.2d 1167 (Vt. 2001). “Adoption of Inappropriate Rules Custody determinations are now governed by statute, 15 V.S.A. § 665. That statute requires that the family court be guided by the best interest of the child, id.”
Knutsen v. CEGALIS, 2009 VT 110 (Vt. 2009). “[1] In reaching this decision, the court weighed the nine factors for determining the best interests of the child, 15 V.S.A. § 665, and found that, although both parties could provide quality care for the child, ultimately the balance favored an award to father when the child…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.