## Facts

- The parties entered a Vermont civil union in 2000 and jointly planned for a child through donor insemination; the child was born in 2002 and was raised by both parties for about 17 months.
- The parties separated, and the biological mother moved with the child from Vermont to Virginia in 2003.
- The biological mother initiated a Vermont dissolution action seeking parental-rights orders.
- The Vermont family court issued temporary orders granting the biological mother custody and awarding visitation and phone contact to the other parent; the biological mother largely refused to comply.
- The family court held the biological mother in contempt for willful noncompliance; earlier appellate proceedings affirmed that both parties had parental interests and upheld visitation and contempt orders.
- After trial, the family court dissolved the civil union and granted the biological mother sole legal and physical custody, subject to regular visitation by the other parent; that final order was affirmed on appeal.
- The biological mother continued to violate visitation orders and was found in contempt multiple times, substantially limiting the child’s contact with the other parent and interfering with contact with the other parent’s family.
- The other parent moved to modify custody based on sustained interference and resulting harm to the child; the family court found a substantial change in circumstances and transferred sole legal and physical custody to the other parent, deferring details of the biological mother’s future contact.
- The biological mother appealed, asserting constitutional parental-rights violations and challenging the sufficiency of the findings supporting modification.

## Issues

1. Whether transferring sole legal and physical custody from the biological mother to the other legally recognized parent violated the biological mother’s fundamental constitutional rights as a parent.
2. Whether the family court properly found a real, substantial change of circumstances and that the custody transfer served the child’s best interests under Vermont modification standards.
3. Whether the family court’s findings regarding interference with parent-child contact and related harms were clearly erroneous or otherwise an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the modification order transferring sole legal and physical custody to the other parent.
- The court held the constitutional “parent versus non-parent” framework did not apply because both parties were legal parents, placing them on equal legal footing for custody purposes.
- The court upheld the finding of a substantial change in circumstances based on repeated, willful interference with court-ordered contact and multiple contempt findings.
- The court concluded the custody transfer was within the family court’s discretion and supported by best-interests findings, including which parent was more likely to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence and deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations where supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- When both litigants are legally recognized parents, custody determinations are resolved under ordinary parent-versus-parent best-interests standards rather than heightened constitutional rules applicable to disputes between a parent and a non-parent.
- Modification of custody requires a real, substantial change of circumstances and a determination that modification serves the child’s best interests.
- Chronic, willful interference with court-ordered parent-child contact, including repeated contempt, can constitute a substantial change of circumstances and support a custody transfer to protect the child’s welfare and relationships.
- Appellate review of custody findings is deferential; supported factual findings and credibility assessments are not reweighed on appeal, and reversal requires clear error or abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a custody transfer from the biological mother to the other legal parent after finding that persistent, willful obstruction of court-ordered contact and repeated contempt constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that transferring custody served the child’s best interests in maintaining stable relationships with both parents.


Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 12 A.3d 768 (Vt. 2010)