Vermont Child Custody Agreement

Introduction

Key Things to Know

1. 1

   Vermont gives a parental agreement more legal weight than almost anywhere else. 15 V.S.A. 666(a) says that any agreement between the parents that divides or shares parental rights and responsibilities shall be presumed to be in the best interests of the child. That presumption attaches to the whole of a sharing or dividing arrangement, not only to a request for joint custody.

2. 2

   The other half of the rule is what happens if you do not agree. 15 V.S.A. 665(a) provides that when the parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award them primarily or solely to one parent. A Vermont judge is not free to impose a shared arrangement on two parents who are fighting about it, so the agreement is not just the faster route to sharing, it is close to the only one.

3. 3

   The presumption does not remove the judge. 15 V.S.A. 666(c) directs that the court shall refuse to approve an agreement if it finds the agreement is not in the child's best interests, or if it finds the agreement was not reached voluntarily. Voluntariness is a separate, freestanding ground for refusal, which matters if one parent has been pressured into signing. Until the court approves it and enters an order, the agreement is not a court order and cannot be enforced as one.

4. 4

   The statute tells you what a complete agreement has to cover. 15 V.S.A. 666(b) requires that an agreement which is a complete agreement on parental rights and responsibilities address at least physical living arrangements, parent child contact, education, medical, dental, and health care, travel arrangements, and procedures for communicating about the child's welfare. If rights are to be shared or divided, it must also set out procedures for resolving disputes, which may include mediation and binding arbitration. The list is a floor, not a ceiling.

5. 5

   Use Vermont's vocabulary in the document. 15 V.S.A. 664 splits parental rights and responsibilities into legal responsibility, covering education, medical and dental care, religion, and travel, and physical responsibility, covering the routine daily care and control of the child. Each of them may be held solely by one parent, or divided or shared. Parent child contact is defined as the right of a parent who does not have physical responsibility to have visitation with the child. Vermont has not abolished the idea of custody: 15 V.S.A. 665(e) says that for interpreting other laws that refer to a custodial parent, the parent with physical responsibility is considered the custodial parent.

6. 6

   If a judge does decide the allocation, 15 V.S.A. 665(b) lists nine best interests factors and says the court shall consider at least those factors, so the list is a minimum rather than a closed set. One of them is the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, except where contact will result in harm to the child or to a parent. Another applies only where rights are to be shared or divided. Where you have agreed, those factors are the frame for what could rebut your presumption rather than a test the court runs from scratch.

7. 7

   Evidence of abuse is a mandatory consideration under 15 V.S.A. 665(b)(9), along with its impact on the child and on the child's relationship with the abusing parent. Vermont does not attach a general presumption against shared responsibility to a finding of abuse, but it does add a separate regime in 15 V.S.A. 665(f)(1) permitting sole parental rights and denial of all parent child contact on clear and convincing evidence in defined sexual assault and human trafficking situations, and 15 V.S.A. 668(c) makes an order under 665(f)(1) not subject to modification. If there has been abuse or coercion, talk to a lawyer before signing anything.

Vermont Requirements for Child Custody Agreement

• Presumption for agreements under 15 V.S.A. 666(a)

  Any agreement between the parents that divides or shares parental rights and responsibilities is presumed to be in the best interests of the child. The presumption applies to the whole arrangement, which is why the agreement should state plainly that the parents are dividing or sharing rights.

• No court-imposed sharing under 15 V.S.A. 665(a)

  When the parents cannot agree to divide or share parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall award them primarily or solely to one parent. A shared or divided allocation is available in practice only through the parents' own agreement.

• Court refusal on best interests or voluntariness under 15 V.S.A. 666(c)

  The court shall refuse to approve an agreement it finds is not in the child's best interests, or that it finds was not reached voluntarily. The agreement should recite that both parents entered it voluntarily and without coercion.

• Required contents of a complete agreement under 15 V.S.A. 666(b)

  A complete agreement on parental rights and responsibilities must address at least physical living arrangements, parent child contact, education, medical, dental, and health care, travel arrangements, and procedures for communicating about the child's welfare. Confirm each of the six appears before filing.

• Dispute resolution procedures under 15 V.S.A. 666(b)(7)

  Where parental rights and responsibilities are to be shared or divided, the agreement must include procedures for resolving disputes, which may include mediation and binding arbitration. Name the method and say what has to happen before either parent files a motion.

• Legal and physical responsibility defined by 15 V.S.A. 664

  Allocate legal responsibility, covering education, medical and dental care, religion, and travel, separately from physical responsibility, covering routine daily care and control and where the child sleeps. State for each whether it is held solely, divided, or shared.

• Parent child contact under 15 V.S.A. 664(2)

  Where one parent does not hold physical responsibility, that parent's time with the child is set out as parent child contact rather than visitation. Give the regular schedule plus holidays and school vacations.

• Best interests factors under 15 V.S.A. 665(b)

  The court shall consider at least nine listed factors, including each parent's disposition to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing contact with the other parent, except where contact will result in harm to the child or to a parent. The list is a minimum, not a closed set.

• Abuse as a mandatory consideration under 15 V.S.A. 665(b)(9)

  Evidence of abuse and its impact on the child and on the child's relationship with the abusing parent must be considered. 15 V.S.A. 665(f)(1) adds a separate regime allowing sole rights and denial of all parent child contact on clear and convincing evidence in defined sexual assault and human trafficking situations.

• Modification standard under 15 V.S.A. 668(a)

  The court may annul, vary, or modify an order on a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances if modification is in the child's best interests, whether or not the order is based upon a stipulation or agreement. Plan for review through the court rather than by private amendment.