Vermont lawChild CustodyRelocationParental RightsVisitationDivorce

Child Custody and Parenting Time in Vermont

September 26, 2026 · LawDiver Research Team

Vermont's rule on child custody and parenting time turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Vermont uses Parental rights and responsibilities (legal) and parent-child contact (physical parenting time).. Courts apply best-interests factors under § 665, including the child’s relationship with each parent, ability to provide, and any history of abuse. Shared parental rights are encouraged when safe; primary residence / contact schedules follow best interests. The controlling authority is 15 V.S.A. §§ 665 to 670. Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show the move is in the child’s best interests; notice and modification practice follow Family Division orders. Modification: A real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances is required to modify parental rights and responsibilities.

Key takeaways

Best-interests standard: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 665, including the child’s relationship with each parent, ability to provide, and any history of abuse.
Labels used in Vermont: Parental rights and responsibilities (legal) and parent-child contact (physical parenting time)..
Parenting-time posture: Shared parental rights are encouraged when safe; primary residence / contact schedules follow best interests.
Relocation: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show the move is in the child’s best interests; notice and modification practice follow Family Division orders.
Modification: A real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances is required to modify parental rights and responsibilities.
Primary authority: 15 V.S.A. §§ 665 to 670.

Worked example under Vermont law

The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Vermont. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.

Two parents in Vermont disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.

Use the labels Vermont actually uses: Parental rights and responsibilities (legal) and parent-child contact (physical parenting time)..
Apply the best-interests factors: Courts apply best-interests factors under § 665, including the child’s relationship with each parent, ability to provide, and any history of abuse.
Check any parenting presumption: Shared parental rights are encouraged when safe; primary residence / contact schedules follow best interests.
If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show the move is in the child’s best interests; notice and modification practice follow Family Division orders. Later changes follow: A real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances is required to modify parental rights and responsibilities.

Parental rights are addressed in divorce or a parentage/parental-rights action. Mediation is common. Final orders allocate decision-making and parent-child contact.

Best-interests factors in Vermont

Courts apply best-interests factors under § 665, including the child’s relationship with each parent, ability to provide, and any history of abuse.

Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time

Parental rights and responsibilities (legal) and parent-child contact (physical parenting time).

Shared parental rights are encouraged when safe; primary residence / contact schedules follow best interests.

Relocation with a child

A parent seeking to relocate with the child generally must show the move is in the child’s best interests; notice and modification practice follow Family Division orders.

Modifying a Vermont custody order

A real, substantial, and unanticipated change of circumstances is required to modify parental rights and responsibilities.

How custody cases typically move in Vermont

Parental rights are addressed in divorce or a parentage/parental-rights action. Mediation is common. Final orders allocate decision-making and parent-child contact.

Case law: custody and parenting time in Vermont

Roger L. Paquette, Jr. v. Judith Ann Paquette

Roger L. Paquette, Jr. v. Judith Ann Paquette, 146 Vt. 83 (1985)

…s from a final judgment that (1) dismissed his petition for custody of his stepson, brought under 15 V.S.A. §§ 291 and 293, and (2) denied his motion to amend the divorce complaint to ask for custody of the stepson. Although there has not yet been a final hearing on the divorce complaint, the trial court found there was no just reason for delay and expressly directed the entry…

Practitioners open Roger L. Paquette, Jr. v. Judith Ann Paquette when Vermont child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "V.S.A. §§ 291 and 293, and (2) denied his motion to amend the divorce complaint to ask for custody of the stepson." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Sally Gazo v. John Gazo — Morse, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

Sally Gazo v. John Gazo — Morse, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, 166 Vt. 434 (1997)

…rse, J., concurring), that we have made the modification-of-custody proceeding needlessly complex and artificial through the two-step approach described in the recent case law and reaffirmed in today’s decision. I. The governing statute provides that a court may modify a custody award “upon a showing of real, substantial and unanticipated change of circumstances ... if it is in…

Sally Gazo v. John Gazo — Morse, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part is worth reading on Vermont child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "J., concurring), that we have made the modification-of-custody proceeding needlessly complex and artificial through the two-step approach described in the recent case law and reaffirmed in today’s decision. I." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Lisa MILLER-JENKINS v. Janet MILLER-JENKINS

Lisa MILLER-JENKINS v. Janet MILLER-JENKINS, 189 Vt. 518 (2010)

…er expartner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, sole physical and legal custody of their minor child, IMJ, with visitation rights for Lisa to be determined at a later point. Lisa argues that the order violates her fundamental constitutional rights as IMJ’s biological parent and that several of the family court’s factual findings and conclusions of law warrant reversal. We affirm, and we al…

On child custody, Lisa MILLER-JENKINS v. Janet MILLER-JENKINS speaks to the Vermont dispute in this passage: "Janet Miller-Jenkins, sole physical and legal custody of their minor child, IMJ, with visitation rights for Lisa to be determined at a later point." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Julie A. Boisvert v. Ronald and Sheila Harrington

Julie A. Boisvert v. Ronald and Sheila Harrington, 173 Vt. 285 (2002)

…ngton, as guardians for the boy. Finding that a transfer of custody was “in the best interest of the child,” the court granted the petition. In 1996, mother was incarcerated for two months. Since that time, the boy has resided primarily with the Harringtons, and has not had contact with mother since August 1997. Mother acknowledges that after her release from prison, she abduct…

Julie A. Boisvert v. Ronald and Sheila Harrington is worth reading on Vermont child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Finding that a transfer of custody was “in the best interest of the child,” the court granted the petition. In 1996, mother was incarcerated for two months. Since that time, the boy has resided primarily with the Harringtons, and has not had contact with mother since August 1997." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

William Kilduff v. Faye Kilduff Willey

William Kilduff v. Faye Kilduff Willey, 150 Vt. 552 (1988)

…endant, Faye Kilduff Willey, from a modification of a child custody order. We remand for further hearings. The parties were divorced in the state of New York in 1980. Custody of their adopted infant son, Liam, was awarded to them jointly, as they wished, with physical custody in the defendant-mother and liberal visitation rights in the plaintiff-father. In 1981, by stipulation,…

Practitioners open William Kilduff v. Faye Kilduff Willey when Vermont child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Faye Kilduff Willey, from a modification of a child custody order. We remand for further hearings. The parties were divorced in the state of New York in 1980." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Elise Price v. Stephen Price

Elise Price v. Stephen Price, 149 Vt. 118 (1987)

…Price, appeals from an order of the superior court granting custody of the minor daughter of the parties to appellee, Stephen Price. Both parties sought a divorce in the superior court and contested the disposition of the property of the marriage, child support, custody and visitation. Only the court’s order with respect to custody has been appealed. However, *119 as noted belo…

Elise Price v. Stephen Price is worth reading on Vermont child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Price, appeals from an order of the superior court granting custody of the minor daughter of the parties to appellee, Stephen Price." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

Raymond E. Knutsen v. Karen Cegalis

Raymond E. Knutsen v. Karen Cegalis, 187 Vt. 99 (2009)

…y, we reverse and remand for the family court to make a new custody order. ¶ 2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The parties were never married. They met in 2004, conceived a child, and subsequently moved in together in father’s Vermont residence in March 2005. Their child was born on August 16, 2005. The parties lived together on a somewhat steady basis until February…

Practitioners open Raymond E. Knutsen v. Karen Cegalis when Vermont child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The parties were never married. They met in 2004, conceived a child, and subsequently moved in together in father’s Vermont residence in March 2005. Their child was born on August 16, 2005." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

Frequently asked questions

What does Vermont call “custody”?