Vermont Supreme Court
721 A.2d 463 (1998)
Mr. Renaud (plaintiff) and Ms. Renaud (defendant) were married in October 1989 and had a son in January 1994. The couple separated in May 1996, because Mr. Renaud was having an affair and wanted a divorce. Prior to separation, both parents cared for the child and were fit parents. After separation, Mr. Renaud moved out, and Ms. Renaud and the child stayed in the original family home. Ms. Renaud then began to impede Mr. Renaud’s contact with the child. As a result, Mr. Renaud had to file motions to establish emergency and temporary visitation schedules in July 1996. Ms. Renaud later filed numerous relief-from-abuse-petitions, alleging Mr. Renaud had physically and sexually abused the child based on diaper rash, sunburn, cuts, and bruises. Ms. Renaud also asserted there had been inappropriate touching. At the time of the trial in April-May 1997, Ms. Renaud remained in the marital home with the child, and Mr. Renaud resided with his paramour and her children. The trial court found that Ms. Renaud’s claims of abuse were unsubstantiated, and all were dismissed. A court-appointed team of psychiatric experts observed that the child interacted well with both parents, but noted the Ms. Renaud’s actions had damaged the child’s relationship with Mr. Renaud. The trial court also concluded, however, that Ms. Renaud’s purpose was not to alienate the child from Mr. Renaud and that her concerns were not wholly unreasonable, because she had repeatedly sought expert guidance before making claims. The trial court awarded Ms. Renaud sole custody, but granted Mr. Renaud extensive visitation rights. Mr. Renaud appealed and alleged a patent abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.