## Facts

- Karen Smith and Lawrence Miller are divorced parents of B.S., a six-year-old child.
- Smith had sole legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities for B.S., while Miller exercised court-ordered parent-child contact (visitation).
- The parents repeatedly disputed the details of Miller’s contact schedule, and the family court entered a more specific schedule after prior conflict.
- After the schedule order, Smith asked the family court to require Miller to transport B.S. to an extracurricular activity (gymnastics) that Smith had arranged, including when the activity would occur during Miller’s parent-child contact time (or when transportation would be affected by exchanges between the parents).
- The family court denied the request, stating it would not continue making detailed adjustments to the parties’ contact arrangements or supervise how Miller used his time with B.S.
- Smith appealed the denial to the Vermont Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court erred by refusing to order a noncustodial parent to take the child to a specific extracurricular activity (gymnastics) during that parent’s court-ordered contact time.
2. Whether the family court abused its discretion by declining to supervise day-to-day scheduling decisions within a parent’s visitation periods.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s order denying Smith’s motion.
- The Court agreed that the family court was not required to dictate routine details of how B.S. spent time with Miller during his contact periods.
- The Court accepted the family court’s view that, within reasonable bounds, decisions about ordinary activities during a parent’s scheduled time are left to the parent who is caring for the child at that time.
- The Court found no basis on this record to require court supervision of whether B.S. attended gymnastics during Miller’s visitation time.

## Legal Principles

- Family courts have broad discretion to set and enforce parent-child contact schedules, and appellate review generally asks whether the court abused that discretion.
- A court may decline to manage minor, day-to-day parenting decisions that arise during visitation, particularly where there is no showing that court control is needed to protect the child’s welfare.
- Even when one parent has sole legal and physical custody, the visiting parent ordinarily retains authority to make reasonable, everyday decisions about the child’s activities during that parent’s scheduled time.
- Courts may seek finality in contact orders and are not required to repeatedly revise or supervise detailed logistical disputes between parents.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court held that the family court acted within its discretion in refusing to order Miller to take B.S. to gymnastics during his visitation time, because routine activity and scheduling choices during a parent’s court-ordered time are generally left to that parent absent a demonstrated need for judicial control.


Miller v. Smith, 989 A.2d 537 (2009)