15 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 665

Section 665(b)(8) requires consideration of the parents’ ability to communicate, cooperate, and make joint decisions when parental rights and responsibilities are shared or divided.

Silverberg v. Kazanes · filed 2024-12-20(b)(8)

However, the plain language of § 665(b)(8) requires the court to consider “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.” (Emphasis added.) In this case parental rights and responsibilities were held solely by father.

Section 665(b)(2) allows a court assessing a child’s best interests to consider each parent’s ability to provide adequate medical care.

Wheeler v. James · filed 2024-09-13(b)(2)

As part of its best-interests analysis, the court properly considered each parent’s ability to provide the children with adequate medical care. 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(2).

Section 665(b) requires a court allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider the relevant statutory factors, but does not require a specific finding on each one.

Smith v. Ami Smith · filed 2023-03-10(b)

While additional findings would have been helpful, the court’s decision reflects its consideration of the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) and the court acted within its discretion in reaching its conclusion.

Section 665 considers each parent’s ability to meet a child’s material and developmental needs; for older children, developmental needs include adapting and thriving in school, social, and community settings.

Brosnahan v. Brosnahan · filed 2015-04-10(b)(2), (3), (5)

Although, as noted, there was some evidence that the children had fallen behind a grade level during their home schooling, this was insufficient to demonstrate that mother could not attend at least as well as father to the children’s developmental needs, which, for older children, encompass not only their academic achievement but also their ability to adapt and thrive in their school, social, and community environments.

Section 665(b)(4) allows the court to compare a child's housing, school, and community in the competing custody arrangements.

Hanson-Metayer v. Hanson-Metayer · filed 2013-04-12(b)(4)

Wife’s first claim is that the court improperly interpreted § 665(b)(4) to create a comparison between the housing, school, and community in Maryland and those elements in Vermont. Her argument is that her “present” living arrangement is in Maryland, not Vermont, so the factor requires the living arrangement in Maryland to be assessed, along with the disruption of a move. The statutory factors necessarily involve a comparison, Bissonette v. Gambrel, 152 Vt. 67, 69, 564 A.2d 600, 601 (1989), and the court did not err in viewing it so.

Section 665(b) requires the family court to consider the statutory best interest factors when deciding whether to modify parental responsibilities, and its findings must permit review of how it applied those factors.

Maurer v. Maurer · filed 2005-02-22(b)

In conducting its analysis, the court must consider the statutory factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). ... In this case, as in the cases discussed above, the family court's findings leave us with no way to determine whether and how the family court applied the best interest factors, or how it reached its conclusion to award mother sole legal rights and responsibilities.

Section 665(b) does not allow a parent to claim the benefit of a custody factor solely by showing that the other parent falls short on that factor.

Harris v. Harris · filed 1988-03-11(b)

Our holding is that a parent cannot claim the benefit of a statutory factor solely by showing that the other parent’s actual or expected performance with respect to that factor is inadequate.

Section 665(b) requires the court to consider its listed factors when awarding parental rights and responsibilities.

Stafford v. Stafford · filed 1993-11-19(b)

The court’s findings show that it took the factors specified in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) into consideration.

Section 665(b) requires a custody decision to reflect the statutory factors; counting each parent’s available hours cannot by itself justify changing custody.

Brennan v. Brennan · filed 1996-10-04(b)

In addition, the court’s analyses under the criteria set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) were not consistent with its decision. ... The court’s rationale predominantly rests on rudimentary hour-counting.

Section 665(b) requires the court to consider each listed factor when deciding parental rights and responsibilities, but does not prescribe how its findings and conclusions must show that consideration.

Mansfield v. Mansfield · filed 1998-02-10(b)

The court is required under § 665(b) only to consider each factor listed when making a determination of parental rights and responsibilities — it imposes no specific requirement on how this consideration is to be manifested in the court’s findings and conclusions.

Section 665(b) requires an even-handed analysis of the statutory factors for each parent when deciding parental rights and responsibilities.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1995-04-14(b)

There was no even-handed analysis of the § 665(b) factors by the trial court with respect to each parent, and there was very little evidence to support the court’s findings regarding the father’s ability to provide for his daughter’s physical and emotional needs.

Section 665(b) permits a court to consider a parent's conduct during a particular period when it also considers each statutory custody factor individually.

Pearson v. Pearson · filed 1999-01-29(b)

This determination was based in part on mother’s conduct during the period from January 1995 through May 1995. Yet the family court also considered individually each of the other statutory factors enumerated in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) in making its ultimate custody determination. ... There was no error.

Section 665(b) supplies the best interests factors for deciding which parent should receive sole custody when shared parenting breaks down.

Hoover (Letourneau) v. Hoover · filed 2000-10-20(b)

The court then considered the best interests of the children by weighing and balancing various factors under 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). ... After appropriately and carefully weighing the factors used when determining the best interests of the children, the trial court found that living in Vermont with their father was favored over living in Connecticut with their mother.

Section 665(b) requires courts deciding custody to consider all relevant evidence, including its listed best interests factors.

Habecker v. Giard · filed 2003-02-14(b)

The court must take into account all relevant evidence, including the factors found in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b).

Section 665(b) directs courts to consider statutory factors when deciding which custody arrangement serves the children’s best interests.

Chick v. Chick · filed 2004-01-14(b)

In making its custody determination, the court carefully examined each of the statutory factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). ... Here, the court found that, considering all time periods of the marriage, the parties shared primary care of the children, and that, while many of the factors favored neither party, three of them favored awarding father primary rights and responsibilities. There is evidence in the record to support the family court’s carefully explained and difficult decision.

Section 665(b) requires a court deciding a child’s best interests to consider the statutory factors.

Sundstrom v. Sundstrom · filed 2004-10-21(b)

The relevant factors to guide the court’s analysis of a child’s best interests are set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), and the court’s analysis reflects its consideration of these factors.

Section 665(b) requires the court to exercise independent judgment about a child’s best interests, even when the parents agree to follow a custody expert’s recommendation.

Luce v. Cushing · filed 2004-12-02(b)

Together, these policies suggest that while the parties may agree to follow the custody recommendation of a jointly selected mental health expert, the court cannot be bound by that agreement or the by expert’s recommendation when the evidence demonstrates that the best interests of the child requires a different result.

Section 665(b) directs the family court to consider statutory best-interest factors when deciding parental rights and responsibilities, with broad discretion to weigh the evidence.

Matthews v. Matthews · filed 2011-11-09(b)

In considering custody, the court examined the factors listed in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). ... Moreover, the family court has broad discretion to determine a child’s best interests based on the relevant statutory factors. ... The court adequately explained its decision to award rights and responsibilities to mother.

Section 665(b) requires the court to weigh the child’s best-interest factors based on circumstances at the time custody is awarded.

Knutsen v. Cegalis · filed 2011-11-15(b)

What was missing in the court’s first custody order is present in the instant case — a weighing of the circumstances outlined in § 665(b) contemporaneously to the award of actual custody.

Section 665 does not require a separate finding on every best-interest factor when the findings as a whole show that the court considered the relevant factors.

Franz v. Franz · filed 2012-02-10

Although the court’s findings are sparse, we conclude that they are sufficient to show that it considered the statutory factors in reaching its decision.

Section 665 requires the court to consider all nine factors, but when it makes findings, it need only address the factors that inform its decision.

Parker v. Parker · filed 2012-03-15(b)

The plain language of § 665 requires that the court “consider,” but not necessarily expound upon, each of the nine statutory factors.

Section 665(b) allows brief findings on the best-interest factors when they show how the court reached its custody decision.

Tara (Carter) Trappaso v. Carter · filed 2012-03-15(b)

These findings address each of the factors contained in § 665(b), albeit briefly. The bottom line is that the court found both parents to be equally capable of caring for the children, but the deciding factor for the court was the benefit of maintaining the children’s relationships with family members and others in the community. The basis for the court’s decision is plainly stated therein; we are not left to wonder how the court arrived at its decision.

Section 665(b) requires consideration of the relevant best-interest factors but does not require a separate finding on each factor when the decision shows they were considered.

Aldrich v. Haselman · filed 2013-05-08(b)

While the court did not specifically make findings on each of the statutory factors, the court is not required to do so.

Section 665 directs courts to consider the statutory best-interest factors when deciding which parent receives sole parental rights and responsibilities.

Tattoli v. Colm · filed 2013-06-12

Instead, it properly looked to the statutory best-interest factors in determining which parent would have sole PR&R.

Section 665(b) permits a court to give significant weight to a parent’s ability to foster contact with the other parent when deciding the child’s best interests, even when the other parent has been the primary caregiver.

Van Alstyne v. Colby Martin · filed 2016-01-07(b)

Nonetheless, although the ordinary course would be to maintain the child with a fit primary caregiver such as mother absent any evidence of the effect on the child of a transfer to the noncustodial parent, in this case the family court adequately explained its reasons for transferring custody to father. Accordingly, we reject mother’s claim that the court erred as a matter of law in transferring custody to father.

Section 665(b) does not require a court to discuss every best-interest factor individually when assessing a parenting schedule.

Fabiano v. Cotton · filed 2020-09-25(b)

Although the trial court did not individually consider each statutory best-interest factor under 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), it stated that in applying the factors, there was “no significant distinction between the parties” except the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship with the other, which plaintiff had not demonstrated. The court acted within its discretion in assessing the best-interest factors.

Section 665(b) requires courts to consider the child’s best interests and the listed factors, but does not prescribe how that consideration must appear in their findings.

LaShomb v. Patry · filed 2024-10-11(b)

Section 665(b) states that in making an order concerning parental rights and responsibilities, “the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child and shall consider at least” the nine factors enumerated. As we have explained, however, the statute “imposes no specific requirement on how this consideration is to be manifested in the court’s findings and conclusions.”

Section 665(b) does not require an order to discuss every best-interest factor explicitly when the order shows that the court considered relevant factors.

Koontz v. Lowery III · filed 2025-07-11(b)

Although the court did not explicitly consider each statutory best-interest factor, its order demonstrates that it considered several of the factors including the parties’ relationships with the child, the parties’ ability to meet the child’s present and future developmental needs, and the impact of past abuse on the child. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) (listing statutory factors).

Section 665(b) applies to a pending custody case when its revised factors affect no pre-existing vested rights.

Myott v. Myott · filed 1988-04-29(b)

There are no pre-existing vested rights involved here. The court was determining custody prospectively from the time of its order forward. The statute worked no fundamental change in the standards under which custody is considered. ... Therefore, 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) effective July 1, 1986 applied to this case.

Section 665(b)’s best-interests factors must be considered when setting parent-child contact in an abuse-prevention case, but the court need not make explicit findings on each factor.

Peachey v. Peachey · filed 2021-10-08(b)

Father also claims that the court’s order must be reversed because it failed to explicitly analyze each of the best-interests factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). It is true that when the court finds in an abuse-prevention case that contact between the defendant and the children will result in further abuse, the court is required to consider the best interests of the children in determining whether contact will occur and under what conditions. V.R.F.P. 9(f)(3). However, the rule requires only that the court consider these factors; it “imposes no specific requirement on how this consideration is to be manifested in the court’s findings and conclusions.”

Section 665(b) does not require the family court to discuss every best-interests factor separately if its findings show that it considered the relevant factors.

Boucher v. Boucher · filed 2024-02-09(b)

The family court has discretion in evaluating the best-interests factors and is not required to specifically evaluate each statutory factor as long as “the findings as a whole reflect that the trial court has taken the statutory factors into consideration, in so far as they are relevant.”

Section 665 requires courts to weigh the best-interests factors when awarding parental rights and responsibilities, rather than simply count how many favor each parent.

Illsley v. Fickert · filed 2024-05-10(b)

In making an award of parental rights and responsibilities, the factors in §665 must be weighed, not simply counted.

Section 665(b) permits a custody award based on a parent's primary-caregiver role and the children's attachment to their home and community.

Maher v. Maher · filed 2025-09-05(b)

The court appropriately exercised its discretion in awarding custody to mother based on her status as the primary caregiver and the children’s attachment to their home and community in Ohio.

Section 665(b) requires a court modifying parent-child contact to consider the child’s best interests under the statutory factors.

Lacroix v. Rysz · filed 2026-02-06(b)

If this requirement is satisfied, then the court must consider whether modification of the existing order is in the child’s best interests according to the statutory factors. Id.; see 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) (listing best-interests factors court must consider). ... The court considered the best-interests factors and explained the reasoning for its decision, which is consistent with the child custody statutes. We accordingly do not disturb its decision.

Section 665(a) requires visitation arrangements to serve the child’s best interests.

Cleverly v. Cleverly · filed 1989-04-14(a)

Visitation rights of the noncustodial parent, having a direct impact on the issue of custody itself, must be structured in a manner that serves the welfare of the child. ... see also 15 V.S.A. § 665(a) (directing the division of parental rights and responsibilities “on such terms and conditions as serve the best interests of the child”).

Section 665(b)’s best-interests criteria require applying facts about the parent-child relationship to the child’s best interests, a mixed question of law and fact.

Woodbury v. Woodbury · filed 1994-02-28(b)

A custody determination involves the application of numerous facts about the parent-child relationship to the “best interests of the child” set forth largely as criteria or standards in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) (eight factors enumerated). This application is a classic question of mixed law and fact.

Section 665(b) requires an award of parental rights and responsibilities to reflect the child’s best interests after consideration of all relevant evidence, including the statutory factors.

Gilbert v. Gilbert · filed 1995-05-12(b)

The award of parental rights and responsibilities must be based on the best interests of the child, reflecting a consideration of all relevant evidence, including the enumerated statutory factors.

Section 665(b) requires a balanced analysis of the child’s best interests when allocating parental rights and responsibilities; custodial interference may carry significant weight.

Lyddy v. Lyddy · filed 2001-09-19(b)

Father claims, however, that his failure to appear and his custodial interference were given too much weight by the trial court, which erred in failing to conduct a complete and balanced analysis required by 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). A review of the transcript refutes father’s contention. ... While father’s actions certainly tipped the balance toward mother in what might have otherwise been a close case, we cannot agree with father that this factor was given too much weight or was the only fact taken into account. The trial court properly focused on the best interests of the child.

Section 665(b) requires the court to consider nine factors when assessing a child’s best interests and gives the court broad discretion in weighing them.

Sochin v. Sochin · filed 2005-03-23(b)

In assessing the child’s best interests, the family court must consider the nine factors contained in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), and otherwise enjoys the broad discretion outlined above.

Section 665(b) provides factors for assessing a child’s best interests when awarding parental rights and responsibilities.

Jackson v. Hendricks · filed 2005-10-24(b)

In this case, the family court made extensive findings regarding Elijah’s best interests relative to the factors identified in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). While it recognized that both father and guardian could provide a safe and supportive home, the court found that Elijah had developed strong relationships in Vermont, and it further acknowledged the presumption in favor of parental custody. Given these findings, the court awarded father legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities, but granted mother and guardian liberal visitation rights. The family court has broad discretion in determining a child’s best interests and rendering a custody determination, Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt. 50, 52-53, 757 A.2d 469, 472 (2000), and we find no abuse of discretion here.

Section 665(b) requires courts weighing a custody change after relocation to consider the child's adjustment, relationships, and each parent's ability to maintain contact with the other parent.

Rogers v. Parrish · filed 2007-05-04(b)

That repetitive relocation must be balanced against an arguably more stable "quality of the child's adjustment to . . . present housing, school and community," 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(4), the child's established relationships with father and other significant family and friends, id. § 665(b)(7), leavened, or not, by the parents' relationship with one another, id. § 665(b)(5), as well as "the quality of the child's relationship with the primary care provider," id. § 665(b)(6), are all a function of the statute and not merely the court's predilection.

Section 665(b) requires courts deciding parental rights and responsibilities to consider the child’s best interests using its listed factors.

Chickanosky v. Chickanosky · filed 2011-09-22(b)

The family court’s application and analysis of the best interests of the child standard and related factors outlined in § 665 was well within its broad discretion.

Section 665(b)’s best-interests standard applies when a court reexamines parent-child contact after a voluntary suspension.

DeSantis v. Pegues · filed 2011-10-07(b)

There was no error in the court’s application of a best-interests-of-the-child standard to this proceeding for three reasons. ... Finally, contrary to father’s contention, the passage of time without any contact, coupled with the allegations of abuse and the effect such allegations had on daughter’s wellbeing, required the court to reexamine what level of parent-child contact would most benefit daughter.

When § 665’s best-interests factors apply, a court need not discuss each factor expressly if its decision shows that it considered the relevant ones.

Chickanosky v. Chickanosky · filed 2012-07-11(b)

Assuming the applicability of the best-interests factors contained in 15 V.S.A. § 665, the court’s analysis is supported. Although the court did not explicitly go through the factors, it clearly considered the relevant ones in its decision. Specifically, looking at the order as a whole, the court considered § 665(b)(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, and § 665(b)(3), the ability and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s present and future developmental needs.

Section 665(b)’s best interests factors guide custody decisions, but the court need not discuss each factor individually.

Blanchard v. DeLuca · filed 2014-05-09(b)

The statutory factors in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) guide the court’s analysis, but the court is not required to expound upon each factor.

Section 665(b) requires the family division to consider the child’s best interests when modifying a parent-child contact order; reunification therapy may be part of a gradual return to contact.

Bertrand v. Murray · filed 2014-09-26(b)

In modifying a parent-child contact order, the family division must be guided by the best interests of the child. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b) (directing the family court to “be guided by the best interests of the child” in making an order determining parental rights and responsibilities.). ... Here, it was within the court’s discretion to determine that reunification therapy was warranted as part of the children’s gradual transition towards contact with mother.

Section 665(b) permits consideration of a parent’s conduct when assessing the children’s developmental needs and the parent’s ability to foster a positive relationship with the other parent.

Leon v. Leon · filed 2015-01-09(b)

This behavior was clearly relevant to an assessment of the children’s best interests, including husband’s ability to meet the children’s developmental needs, and his ability to foster a positive relationship with wife. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b).

Section 665(b) requires the family court to consider the child’s best interests but does not prescribe how that consideration must appear in its findings and conclusions.

Cheever v. Merrick · filed 2015-03-06(b)

In reaching a decision, the family court is required to consider the child’s best interests as delineated in § 665(b), but the statute “imposes no specific requirement on how this consideration is to be manifested in the court’s findings and conclusions.” Mansfield v. Mansfield, 167 Vt. 606, 607 (1998) (mem.). ... The findings as found in turn support the court’s assessment of the statutory best-interests factors.

Section 665(b) requires courts to consider at least its nine listed factors when determining a child’s best interests in allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

MacCormack v. MacCormack · filed 2015-04-17(b)

In determining the best interests of the child, the trial judge “shall consider at least” the nine factors listed in § 665(b).

Section 665’s best-interest factors give great weight to a parent’s role as the child’s primary caregiver when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Heydenrych v. Heydenrych · filed 2015-05-14

In this case, by contrast, mother has been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their lives, mother was not the primary source of the children’s estrangement from father, and with one exception, all of the statutory factors favored an award of custody to mother. Begins does not control our decision here, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sole legal and physical rights and responsibilities in the children to mother.

Section 665’s best-interests factors include the child’s relationship with the primary caregiver and each parent’s ability to foster a positive relationship with the other parent.

Boyle v. O'Neill · filed 2015-06-12(b)

In reaching this conclusion, the court analyzed the statutory best-interests factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665. ... The court explained why it concluded that mother should retain primary custody, including the fact that she was the primary caregiver and she was better able to foster a positive relationship with the other parent. We will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. We find no error in the court’s decision.

Section 665(b) requires parental-rights orders to be guided by the child’s best interests, including consideration of the statutory factors.

Knutsen v. Cegalis · filed 2016-01-15(b)

The record shows that the court considered all of the statutory best-interest criteria in reaching its decision and it provided a reasoned basis for its conclusions.

Section 665(b) makes the child’s best interests the guiding concern in orders of parental rights and responsibilities, including restrictions on contact with others.

Zeno v. Brusca · filed 2016-04-14(b)

Our law provides that in making an order of parental rights and responsibilities the court’s “paramount concern is the best interests of the child.” Paine v. Buffa, 2014 VT 10, ¶ 12, 195 Vt. 596; see 15 V.S.A. §665(b) (providing that, in making order of parental rights and responsibilities, court shall “be guided by the best interests of the child”). ... As these standards make clear, it is not—as mother contends—solely or even especially the interests of the parents that are most important in a custody dispute, but those of the child at the center of the dispute.

Section 665(b) requires courts deciding parental rights and responsibilities to focus on the child's best interests.

Knutsen v. Cegalis · filed 2017-07-07(b)

In deciding which course of action was appropriate, the trial court properly focused its analysis on L.C.'s best interests as required by 15 V.S.A. § 665(b).

Section 665(b)’s best-interest factors guide the choice of physical custodian when a parent proposes to relocate with a child.

Quinones v. Bouffard · filed 2017-10-27(b)

In determining the best interests of a child, the court considers the nine factors listed in 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). ... But the determination of which parent should be awarded physical rights and responsibilities in light of the relocation, rather than whether the relocation itself is in the child's bests interests, should drive the court's analysis.

Section 665(b) identifies best-interests factors that courts may apply when deciding whether to restrict parent-child contact, including a parent's ability to meet the child's needs, support the child's relationship with the other parent, and cooperate with that parent.

Nicola Weaver v. Weaver · filed 2018-04-06(b)

The court’s findings in the November 2016 order relate directly to several relevant best-interests factors: the parent’s ability to meet the child’s developmental needs, 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(2); “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,” 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(5), and the parent’s ability to communicate and cooperate with the other parent, 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(8).

Section 665(b) requires the court to explain how it weighed the statutory best-interests factors when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

Lee v. Ogilbee · filed 2018-09-07(b)

Thus, we will overturn the court’s parental-rights-and-responsibilities determination when the court fails to explain how it weighed the § 665(b) factors and reached the conclusion that the order satisfied the best-interests-of-the-child standard.

Section 665(b) directs the court to weigh the child’s best interests when awarding parental rights and responsibilities.

Wright v. Kemp · filed 2019-02-15(b)

The court properly assessed the statutory criteria and determined that several factors weighed in favor of giving sole physical rights and responsibilities to mother, who had a healthy relationship with daughter and was better able to support daughter’s emotional and therapeutic needs.

Section 665 lists factors for assessing a child’s best interests, but courts may consider other factors too.

Kitoko v. Salomao · filed 2019-06-25

The court’s decision turned on an evaluation of the children’s best interests, and it was not limited to considering only those factors listed in 15 V.S.A. § 665; the court has discretion to consider other factors and also to rely “upon its own common sense and experience in reaching a reasoned judgment as to the best interests of the child.” Osmanagic v. Osmanagic, 2005 VT 37, ¶¶ 5-6, 178 Vt. 538, 872 A.2d 897 (mem.).

When parents cannot agree to share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) requires the court to assign physical rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.

Gordon v. Fogell · filed 2025-05-16(a)

Where, as here, the parents cannot agree to share rights and responsibilities, the court must award physical rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent.

When parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) requires the court to award them primarily or solely to one parent.

Roy v. Roy · filed 2024-09-13(a)

“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.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(a). The court had to designate a primary parent, and adequately explained its reasoning for choosing mother given the facts before it.

Section 665 permits a court to assign physical responsibilities to one parent and legal responsibilities to the other when the custody decision is supported by the child's best interests.

Kasper v. Kasper · filed 2007-01-04

Father suggests that the family court could have effected this same result using other tools, such as requiring father to consult with mother on major decisions. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(d) ("[t]he court may order a parent who is awarded responsibility for a certain matter . . . to inform the other parent when a major change in that matter occurs."). Whether the family court had other effective options is not the focus of our inquiry. This Court must determine whether the family court abused its discretion in choosing the option it did. Having considered the record that was before the family court, we cannot conclude that the judgment in this case was unreasonable.

Section 665(a) directs the court to award primary or sole parental responsibility to one parent when the parents cannot agree to share it; the other parent need not be found unfit.

Bancroft v. Bancroft · filed 1990-06-15(a)

Thus, by granting custody to one parent, the trial court acted in accordance with long-standing precedent, recently incorporated into the statutory scheme, that when the parties are unable to agree on sharing parental responsibilities, it is in the children’s best interest for one parent to have ultimate responsibility for directing their lives.

Section 665(a) requires parental rights and responsibilities to be granted to one parent when the parents cannot agree to divide or share them.

Lane v. Schenck · filed 1992-05-22(a)

Section 665(a) also mandates what was not addressed in its predecessor, that parental rights and responsibilities be granted to one parent “[w]hen the parents cannot agree to divide or share” them, as was the case here.

Section 665(a) requires the court to award primary or sole parental rights and responsibilities to one parent when the parents cannot agree to share them.

Cabot v. Cabot · filed 1997-05-23(a)

The meaning of § 665(a) is plain: where the parents cannot agree, the court must award primary (or sole) parental rights and responsibilities to one parent.

Section 665(a) allows a court to give one parent primary responsibility while requiring consultation with the other parent about specified decisions.

Gazo v. Gazo · filed 1997-05-23(a)

The use of the word "primarily" shows that the Legislature expected that some sharing of responsibilities, short of joint custody, could be ordered. ... Thus, where the circumstances warrant it, the family court may require the primary parent to consult with the other parent before making certain decisions. ... If the court is to make such an order, it must specify the decisions involved and craft some ascertainable standard to determine when a decision is so important as to invoke the consultation requirement.

Section 665(a) permits a court to divide discrete legal responsibilities between parents who cannot agree, assigning each area exclusively to one parent.

Shea v. Metcalf · filed 1998-04-03(a)

We hold that the family court's division of discrete legal rights and responsibilities between the parties satisfies the requirements of § 665(a).

Section 665(a) applies to parentage actions and prohibits court-ordered sharing of parental rights and responsibilities when the parents cannot agree, although it does not require an all-or-nothing award.

Heffernan v. Harbeson · filed 2004-10-01(a)

Nothing in the cited passage implies that the standards that follow are exclusive to orders issued under Title 15, chapter 11. ... The parties before us were unable to agree to share or divide legal rights and responsibilities for their child. Under these circumstances, § 665(a), while not requiring an “all or nothing” approach, does prohibit a court-ordered sharing arrangement.

Section 665(a) permits a court to assign legal rights to one parent and physical rights to the other when the parents cannot agree, so long as they are not forced to share decision-making authority.

Chase v. Bowen · filed 2008-02-08(a)

We conclude that the family court’s order does not violate the statute because it does not force the parents to share decision-making authority. The court granted father legal rights and responsibilities, and mother physical rights and responsibilities.

When parents cannot agree to share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) requires the court to award them primarily or solely to one parent.

Thibodeau v. Blanchard · filed 2013-03-18(a)

Given this record, the trial court’s decision to award both legal and physical rights and responsibilities to one parent or the other was not only within its discretion; it was required. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(a) (“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.”). Had the court imposed a shared arrangement without agreement, it would have been error.

Section 665(a) does not require a court to award all parental rights and responsibilities to one parent when the parents cannot agree; changing physical responsibilities requires separate findings and analysis.

Wener v. Wener · filed 2016-09-16(a)

We have previously held that § 665(a), which governs where parents cannot agree, “does not mean that the court must award all rights and responsibilities to one parent,” as “[t]he statute’s purpose is to avoid the disruption to children caused by forcing unwilling parents to participate in joint decision-making.” Chase v. Bowen, 2008 VT 12, ¶ 39, 183 Vt. 187, 945 A.2d 901 (emphasis added). We conclude that modification of physical rights and responsibilities was inappropriate without separate findings and analysis as specified in the following paragraphs.

Section 665(a) generally requires a parent awarded sole or primary physical rights and responsibilities to provide the child’s daily care at least half the time.

Barrows v. Easton · filed 2020-01-17(a)

An award of sole or primary physical rights and responsibilities to one parent generally means, at a minimum, that that parent is responsible for the day-to-day care of the child at least half the time.

Section 665(a) permits a court to assign separate legal parental responsibilities solely to each parent when that division serves the child’s best interests.

Vance v. Locke · filed 2022-05-13(a)

However, we have also held it is consistent with the Legislature’s intent and within the trial court’s discretion to split up and allocate legal rights and responsibilities between the parents if doing so would be in the child’s best interests.

Section 665(a) requires parental rights and responsibilities to be awarded primarily or solely to one parent when the parents do not agree to share them; a temporary agreement does not authorize a permanent shared order.

Griggs v. Griggs · filed 2023-03-10(a)

Finally, we agree with both parties that the court violated 15 V.S.A. § 665(a) in awarding shared PRR. ... The parties in this case made only a temporary agreement to share PRR while the divorce proceedings were pending. At the time of trial, both sought sole PRR and did not mutually consent to share PRR on a permanent basis. The court therefore erred by permanently ordering the parties to share PRR.

When parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) requires the court to award them primarily or solely to one parent.

Wetzel v. Zimmer · filed 2023-07-21(a)

By law, “[w]hen 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.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(a). ... As an initial matter, the court could not, by law, have divided PRR as father now requests.

When parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, § 665(a) requires the court to award them primarily or solely to one parent.

Demers v. Johnston · filed 2023-12-15(a)

As the court explained, moreover, it could not order shared PRR due to the absence of any agreement between the parties. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(a) (“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.”).

Section 665 permits a court to divide legal parental rights and responsibilities between parents even when they do not agree to share them.

Gordon v. Fogell · filed 2026-02-06

The family court may divide elements of legal parental rights and responsibilities between the parents even where parents do not agree to share rights.

Section 665(b)(6) requires the court to consider a parent’s role as caregiver when allocating parental rights and responsibilities.

DeLeonardis v. Page · filed 2010-06-04(b)(6)

Thus, we conclude that the family court properly considered defendant’s role as caregiver, as required by § 665(b)(6).

Section 665 allows other custody factors to outweigh a parent's earlier status as primary caregiver.

Todd Swim a/k/a Todd C. Swim v. Margaret (Swim) O'Neill · filed 2012-12-13

We first note that the court’s detailed decision touched upon each of the statutory criteria set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 665. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision not to apply mother’s primary caregiver status during the marriage so as to override other factors favoring father in its custody determination.

A parent’s role as primary caregiver receives great weight in the best-interests analysis but does not create a presumption that the parent should receive custody.

Stephanie Busha (Tyler) v. Busha · filed 2016-03-10(b)(6)

A parent’s role as primary caregiver is entitled to great weight unless the parent is unfit, “but it does not create a presumption that the primary caretaker should be awarded custody.” Hubbell (Gault) v. Hubbell, 167 Vt. 153, 156 (1997). ... Given this active parenting by both parents, the court had sufficient evidence to determine the likely effect of giving father sole parental rights.

Section 665(b)(6)’s primary caregiver factor calls for consideration of all relevant periods of a child’s life, including the child’s relationships with both parents through the modification hearing.

Clark v. Bellavance · filed 2016-12-09(b)(6)

In assessing the primary-caretaker factor, the court should consider all relevant periods in the child’s life and while the period between the original parenting order and the filing of the motion to modify is most relevant, consideration of the child’s relationship with both parents until the time of the hearing on the modification motion is also a period the court was free to consider.

Section 665(b)(6) requires the court to consider the child’s relationship with the primary care provider, but the court need not expressly identify that provider when the fact is undisputed.

Varnum v. Varnum · filed 1990-11-30(b)(6)

As the defendant points out, there was no dispute as to who was the primary care provider of the children either under the temporary order in effect at the time of trial or throughout the marriage. It was not essential for the court to state this obvious and undisputed fact. The court properly considered the statutory factor.

Section 665(b)(6) requires courts to consider all relevant periods of a child's life when identifying the primary care provider, rather than focusing only on the period just before trial.

Nickerson v. Nickerson · filed 1992-02-07(b)(6)

Instead, the inquiry should focus on all relevant periods of the child's life, rather than exclusively on the period immediately preceding trial.

Section 665(b)(6) requires consideration of the child's relationship with the primary care provider when appropriate to the child's age and development; that factor may carry less weight for an older child who has been living with the other parent.

Guiel v. Guiel · filed 1996-07-02(b)(6)

We note first that 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(6) requires the court to consider as one factor in parental-rights-and-responsibilities determinations "the quality of the child's relationship with the primary care provider, if appropriate given the child's age and development." As Scott was sixteen at the time of the final hearing, and had been living with his father for several months, the court may have reasonably concluded that his relationship with the primary care provider was not a particularly important factor in the custody decision.

Section 665(b)(6) makes the child's primary care provider a factor in deciding parental rights and responsibilities; a parent's greater care after separation does not necessarily outweigh the other parent's earlier and continuing role.

Putnam v. Putnam · filed 1996-12-20(b)(6)

These findings are sufficiently supported by the record. We therefore reject husband’s argument that in determining which parent is the primary care provider, his time with the child after the separation outweighs the role wife played, and continues to play, in the child’s life.

Section 665(b)(6) allows a court to find that both parents qualify as the child’s primary care provider.

Payrits v. Payrits · filed 2000-06-16(b)(6)

We have never held, as mother essentially argues, that a court may not find that both parents qualify as the primary care provider or that neither parent so qualifies, and we decline mother’s invitation to do so.

Section 665(b)(6) calls for consideration of the child's relationship with the primary care provider; the weight given that relationship depends on the likely effect of changing custody on the child.

Porcaro v. Drop · filed 2002-12-27(b)(6)

The additional weight to be accorded the primary care giver relationship depends on "the likely effect of a change of custodian on the child." Id. at 55, 757 A.2d at 473. The court's decision here satisfies this contingent standard.

Section 665(b)(6) requires courts to weigh the quality of a child’s relationship with the primary caregiver when deciding custody, but primary caregiver status does not determine the award.

Harris v. Harris · filed 1994-06-03(b)(6)

Rather, § 665(b)(6) “directs the court to give some weight to continuation of the primary custodian with the weight to be determined by the quality of the relationship.”

Section 665(c) prohibits a custody preference based on the sex of the child or either parent.

Hubbell (Gault) v. Hubbell · filed 1997-09-19(c)

We agree that the court referred to the same-sex factor as an advantage to the child of remaining with his father and improperly weighed that factor in arriving at its decision. Consequently, we must remand to the trial court to reconsider the custody issue without regard to the sex of the child or the parents.

Section 665(b)(9) permits a court assessing a child’s best interests to consider credible allegations of pre-divorce sexual abuse that the moving party first learned of after the divorce.

LaFlam v. LaFlam · filed 2022-11-04(b)(9)

We agree and hold that the family division may consider post-divorce allegations of sexual abuse against a parent occurring before the divorce to determine the children’s best interests under 15 V.S.A. § 665(b), if the moving party was unaware of the allegations at the time of the divorce and the court finds the allegations credible.

Section 665(b)(9) requires courts to consider evidence of abuse and its impact on the child and the parent-child relationship; an unsupported abuse finding does not require reversal when the remaining factors support the parental rights award.

Centeno v. Centeno · filed 2024-05-24(b)(9)

At issue in this appeal is the ninth factor, which is “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.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(9). ... The abuse finding was not essential to the court’s ultimate decision to award custody to mother in this case.

Section 665(b)(9) requires a court deciding custody to consider evidence of abuse and its impact on the child and the child’s relationship with the abusing parent.

Davis v. Hunt · filed 1997-11-21(b)(9)

Here, as mother’s counsel noted, the allegation of abuse went to the “core” of the custody and visitation issue. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(9) (in making a custody determination, “the court shall consider evidence of abuse . . . and the impact of the abuse on the child and on the relationship between the child and the abusing parent.”). The thirteen year old witness was competent to testify, the evidence was not cumulative, and there was no other apparent means of eliciting the same evidence. We thus perceive no sound basis for its exclusion in these circumstances.

Section 665(b)(5) makes each parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent a critical factor in awarding custody.

Begins v. Begins · filed 1998-09-11(b)(5)

A critical statutory factor guiding the court’s determination is “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.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(5).

Section 665(b)(5) requires courts awarding parental rights to consider each parent's ability and willingness to foster a positive relationship and continuing contact with the other parent.

Renaud v. Renaud · filed 1998-09-11(b)(5)

Indeed, in awarding parental rights and responsibilities, the court is statutorily required to consider “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.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(5).

Section 665(b)(5) requires findings that support a custody court’s assessment of each parent’s ability and willingness to foster the child’s relationship and continuing contact with the other parent.

Cloutier v. Blowers · filed 2001-08-31(b)(5)

The court's findings that mother was frustrated by father's desire to be involved in Tarik's life, and thus made unsubstantiated allegations against father, do not support a conclusion that mother has the "ability and disposition . . . to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact" with father.

Section 665(b)(5) requires courts deciding a child’s best interests to consider each parent’s ability and disposition to foster a continuing relationship with the other parent.

Meyer v. Meyer · filed 2001-11-09(b)(5)

Such actions and efforts on the part of father not only prevented the parties from effectively co-parenting — necessitating the modification of that arrangement at issue in this appeal — but also weighed against making father the sole custodian for the children. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(5) (in determining best interests of child court shall consider, among other things, the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a continuing relationship with the other parent).

Section 665(b)(5) allows a court to consider a parent’s ability to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent without waiting for that parent to succeed in alienating the child.

Bell v. Squires · filed 2003-12-10(b)(5)

Moreover, we disagree that the trial court must wait until a parent actually succeeds in alienating the child from the other parent before applying this factor.

Section 665(b)(1) does not allow a parent to gain an advantage in the custody analysis by alienating the child from the other parent.

Spaulding v. Butler · filed 2001-08-31(b)(1)

Here, the court repeatedly found that father had actively worked to alienate Nathan from his mother. To conclude, then, that father's success in that regard gives him the advantage in factor one is untenable.

A parent’s ability to foster a positive relationship with the other parent is a critical best interests factor, but it does not outweigh the other factors automatically.

Hazlett v. Toomin · filed 2011-07-12(b)(5)

The ability to foster a positive relationship is a critical factor in determining a child’s best interests, but unlike the primary caregiver relationship, we have not elevated it above other factors.

Section 665(b)(5) weighs each parent’s ability and willingness to foster the child’s relationship and continuing contact with the other parent.

Frazer v. Olson · filed 2015-06-26(b)(5)

The findings support the trial court’s conclusion that the fifth statutory factor favored father. The court found that mother opposed increasing contact between the children and father.

Section 665(b)(5) directs courts allocating parental rights and responsibilities to consider each parent’s ability to foster a positive relationship and continuing contact with the other parent.

Halley v. Francoeur · filed 2025-11-07(b)(5)

It credited father’s commitment to fostering a positive relationship with the children and mother through regular routine PCC and generous summertime contact, which father proposed to be on a two- week-on, two-week-off schedule.

Under § 665(b), a parent’s proposed relocation may become a dominant factor in an initial custody decision when the parents are otherwise nearly equal under the statutory factors.

Johnson v. Elmore · filed 2026-02-06(b)

Taken together, this evidence shows that mother planned to move to Virginia. The court therefore did not err in basing its decision on her proposed relocation.

Section 665(b) allows a court to consider a parent’s proposed relocation when making a final parental rights order, even though relocation is not a listed factor.

Paine v. Buffa · filed 2014-01-31(b)

Although relocation is not specifically listed as a factor, our case law makes clear that the family court should consider a party’s proposed relocation when making a final order of parental rights and responsibilities.

Section 665(b) does not require a court to consider additional factors specific to a parent’s proposed move to a foreign country.

Osmanagic v. Osmanagic · filed 2005-03-23(b)

While a trial court may have discretion to consider these or other factors not contained in § 665(b), the statute does not require a court to consider them, and we decline father’s invitation to graft the Condon factors onto the statute.

Section 665(b) requires a custody decision based on the child's best interests under the circumstances existing when the court makes that decision.

Knutsen v. CEGALIS · filed 2009-12-10(b)

By reference to the factors outlined in § 665, a family court must decide what custody arrangement serves the best interests of a child given the circumstances that exist at that time.

Section 665(b) permits a child’s significant relationship with a third party to affect the best-interests analysis, but factors concerning parental capacities require a comparison of the parents themselves.

Bratton v. Laura Holland (Bratton) · filed 2018-05-25(b)

There is a separate statutory best-interests factor that specifically addresses “the relationship of the child with any other person who may significantly affect the child.” Id. § 665(b)(7). We agree that this can be a critical factor in assessing a child’s best interests and it may tip the scales in the best-interests analysis. The court here, however, improperly allowed grandfather’s relationship with D.B. to permeate other best-interests factors that are limited by their plain terms to an evaluation of parents’ capacities.

Section 665(b)(7) requires the family court to consider a child’s relationship with grandparents who may significantly affect the child.

Thompson v. Pafundi · filed 2010-08-19(b)(7)

In a parental rights and responsibilities decision, 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(7) requires the family court to consider the child’s relationship with “any other person who may significantly affect the child.”

Section 665(b)(7) permits a court to consider a parent's interference with a child's relationship with grandparents when determining the child's best interests.

Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins · filed 2010-10-29(b)(7)

Further, the family court's decision to transfer custody was not based solely on Lisa's alienation of IMJ from Janet; it was also based on Lisa's alienation of IMJ from Janet's parents, which the court deemed to be against IMJ's best interests. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(7) (noting that one factor that must be considered in determining best interests of child is relationship of child with any other person who may significantly affect the child). For these reasons, we find no basis to overturn the court's findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the decision to transfer custody.

Section 665(a) requires the court to set parent-child contact and prohibits delegating substantive contact decisions to others.

Engel v. Engel · filed 2012-11-30(a)

The court was thus bound to fulfill its statutory role by crafting a contact schedule and could not delegate this task to another agency or individual.

Section 665(a) allows a parent with contact to make decisions about activities during that contact, including signing required releases, despite the other parent’s award of sole parental rights and responsibilities.

Patnode v. Garrison Urette · filed 2017-11-17(a)

We held that “[t]he use of the word ‘primarily’ [in the statute] shows that the Legislature expected that some sharing of responsibilities . . . could be ordered.” Id. at 443, 697 A.2d at 347 (discussing 15 V.S.A. § 665(a), which provides that court “shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent”). Here, there is no indication that the superior court found it was in the best interest of the child that mother possess sole authority to make decisions about the child’s activities. Further, the superior court has not determined that father is incapable of making decisions with the best interest of the child in mind. Thus, father is entitled to make decisions regarding activities that occur during his parent-child contact and has the authority to sign any necessary releases or waivers of liability required for these activities.

Section 665(b) requires factual findings to support the court’s application of the best-interests factors when setting a parent-child contact schedule.

Huynh v. Huynh · filed 2022-12-16(b)

For example, the court reiterated statements from its final order that “both [parents] are capable of continuing to provide the children with food, clothing, medical care, and a safe environment” and “both parties provide the children with love, affection, and guidance,” tracking the language from the corresponding statutory factors. See 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(1) (court must consider “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”); id. § 665(b)(2) (court must consider “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”). These legal conclusions cannot stand unless supported by factual findings, and without such findings, they cannot serve as the foundation for the court’s ultimate conclusion regarding what PCC schedule is in the children’s best interests.

Section 668 supplies the threshold for modifying an existing parental rights or contact order; § 665’s initial-order criteria do not decide that threshold.

Scheffler v. Casey · filed 2023-06-09

Motions to modify PRR and PCC are governed by 15 V.S.A. § 668, not § 665.