Vermont Child Custody Agreement
In Vermont, sharing or dividing parental rights and responsibilities is something parents reach themselves, because a court cannot order it over their disagreement.
Find out where you stand in Vermont
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
Vermont does not divide a case into custody and visitation. Under 15 V.S.A. 664 a court allocates parental rights and responsibilities, which the statute splits 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. Either can be held solely by one parent, or divided or shared between both. Two provisions then make the parents' own agreement unusually powerful. 15 V.S.A. 666(a) presumes that any agreement between the parents that divides or shares parental rights and responsibilities is in the child's best interests, while 15 V.S.A. 665(a) provides that when the parents cannot agree, the court shall award parental rights and responsibilities primarily or solely to one parent. The practical effect is that a shared or divided arrangement is realistically available in Vermont only through a document the parents write themselves. That document still goes to a judge: 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.
Key Things to Know
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in Vermont, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
Vermont Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, and unusually so. 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. That presumption applies to the arrangement as a whole rather than to one narrow request, and it means the court begins from the presumption that your agreement is in the child's best interests.
Yes. It takes effect as a court order only when the court approves it and enters it. 15 V.S.A. 666(c) directs the court to refuse approval if it finds the agreement is not in the child's best interests, or if it finds the agreement was not reached voluntarily. Those are two separate grounds, and either one is enough for a refusal.
15 V.S.A. 666(b) says an agreement that is a complete agreement on parental rights and responsibilities must address at least physical living arrangements, parent child contact, education of the minor child, 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 include procedures for resolving disputes, which may include mediation and binding arbitration. Because the statute says at least, you can and often should cover more.
15 V.S.A. 664 splits parental rights and responsibilities into two parts. Legal responsibility covers education, medical and dental care, religion, and travel. Physical responsibility covers the routine daily care and control of the child. Each may be held solely by one parent, or divided or shared between them, and one does not follow automatically from the other, so say what you intend for each.
It is Vermont's term for what other states call visitation. 15 V.S.A. 664 defines parent child contact as the right of a parent who does not have physical responsibility to have visitation with the child. If your agreement gives physical responsibility to one parent, the other parent's time with the child is set out as parent child contact, and 15 V.S.A. 666(b) requires the agreement to address it.
Not entirely. The custody and visitation labels are replaced in the family statute by parental rights and responsibilities and parent child contact, but 15 V.S.A. 665(e) provides that for interpreting other provisions of law that refer to a custodial parent, the parent with physical responsibility is considered the custodial parent. So the older word still has work to do outside this chapter, and your agreement should use the statutory terms.
15 V.S.A. 665(b) lists nine factors and says the court shall consider at least those factors, so the list sets a minimum rather than a closed set. They include each parent's ability and 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, and evidence of abuse and its impact on the child. 15 V.S.A. 665(c) separately bars any preference based on the sex of the child, the sex of a parent, or a parent's financial resources.
Changes go through the court, not through a side agreement. Under 15 V.S.A. 668(a) the court may annul, vary, or modify an order if it is in the best interests of the child, on a showing of a real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances. The statute adds that this applies whether or not the order is based upon a stipulation or agreement, so agreeing at the start does not shield the order from later review.
No. Child support is a separate calculation and is handled in its own filings, not resolved by a parenting arrangement. Keep the two questions apart, and do not assume that signing an agreement about parental rights and responsibilities has fixed what either parent pays.