¶ 1. Lisa Miller-Jenkins appeals a family court decision finding her expartner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, to be a parent of their three-year-old child conceived via artificial insemination. On appeal, Lisa
¶ 2. We granted interlocutory appeal to address the validity of these orders. We conclude the civil union between Lisa and Janet was valid and the family court had jurisdiction to dissolve the union. Further, we decide that the family court had exclusive jurisdiction to issue the temporary custody and visitation order under both the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 15 V.S.A. §§ 1031-1051, and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2000). We affirm the family court's determination that Janet is a parent of IMJ, the resulting visitation order, and the order of contempt issued against Lisa for her failure to abide by the visitation order.
¶ 3. Lisa and Janet lived together in Virginia for several years in the late 1990's. In December 2000, the parties traveled to Vermont and entered into a civil union. In 2001, while Lisa and Janet were still a couple, Lisa began to receive artificial insemination from sperm provided by an anonymous donor. Janet participated in the decision that Lisa become impregnated and helped select the anonymous donor. In April 2002, Lisa gave birth to IMJ, with Janet present in the delivery room. Lisa, Janet, and IMJ lived in Virginia until IMJ was approximately four months old and then moved together to Vermont around August of 2002. The parties lived together with IMJ in Vermont until the fall of 2003, when they decided to separate. After the separation, in September 2003, Lisa moved to Virginia with IMJ.
¶ 4. On November 24, 2003, Lisa filed a petition to dissolve the civil union in the Vermont family court in Rutland. In her complaint, Lisa listed IMJ as the "biological or adoptive childof the civil union." Lisa requested that the court award her custodial rights and award Janet parent-child contact. The family court issued a temporary order on parental rights and responsibilities on June 17, 2004. This order awarded Lisa temporary legal and physical responsibility for IMJ, and awarded Janet parent-child contact for two weekends in June, one weekend in July, and the third full week of each month, beginning in August 2004. The family court also ordered Lisa to permit Janet to have telephone contact with IMJ once daily.
¶ 5. Although Lisa permitted the first court ordered parent-child-contact weekend, she did not allow Janet to have parent-child contact after that date, nor did she allow Janet to have telephone contact with IMJ, as the family court had ordered. In fact, Lisa has not allowed Janet to have any contact with IMJ other than during that first weekend. Meanwhile, on July 1, 2004, after the Vermont court had already filed its temporary custody and visitation order and parentage decision, Lisa filed a petition in the Frederick County Virginia Circuit Court and asked that court to establish IMJ's parentage.
¶ 6. In response, on July 19, 2004, the Vermont court reaffirmed its "jurisdiction over this case including all parent-child contact issues," stated that it would not "defer to a different State that would preclude
¶ 7. Although the Vermont and Virginia courts consulted by telephone, an interstate parental-rights contest ensued. On September 2, 2004, the Vermont court found Lisa in contempt for willful refusal to comply with the temporary visitation order. On September 9, the Virginia court held it had jurisdiction to determine the parentage and parental rights of IMJ and that any claims of Janet to parental status were "based on rights under Vermont's civil union laws that are null and void under Va.Code § 20-45.3." On October 15, the Virginia court followed with a parentage order finding Lisa to be the "sole biological and natural parent" of IMJ and holding that Janet has no "claims of parentage or visitation rights over" IMJ. That order is on appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
¶ 8. On November 17, 2004, the Vermont court found that both Lisa and Janet had parental interests in IMJ and set the case for a final hearing on parental rights, property, and child support. Thereafter, on December 21, 2004, the Vermont court issued a ruling refusing to give full faith and credit to the Virginia parentage decision. Lisa appealed both of these decisions, as well as the decision finding her in contempt.
I. Interstate Jurisdiction and Full Faith and Credit
¶ 9. This case is, at base, an interstate jurisdictional dispute over visitation with a child. Lisa argues here that the Vermont family court should have given full faith and credit to the Virginia court's custody and parentage decision, which determined Janet had no parentage or visitation rights with respect to IMJ. The family court rejected this argument because it concluded the Virginia decision did not comport with the PKPA, "which was designed for the very purpose of eliminating jurisdictional battles between states with conflicting jurisdictional provisions in child custody disputes." The Vermont court determined it had exercised jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the PKPA and had continuing jurisdiction at the time Lisa's action was filed in Virginia. Therefore, it further concluded the Virginia court was prohibited from exercising jurisdiction by the PKPA, § 1738A(g), and the Vermont court had no obligation to give full faith and credit to the conflicting Virginia decision.
¶ 10. In analyzing Lisa's arguments, we note that she does not contest that if she and Janet were a validly married heterosexual couple, the family court's PKPA analysis would be correct. Because of her tacit acceptance of the family court's analysis with regard to jurisdiction under the PKPA, we provide only a summary description of why we believe that the family court was correct.
¶ 11. The purpose of the PKPA is to determine when one state must give full faith and credit to a child custody determination of another state, such that the new state cannot thereafter act inconsistently with the original custody determination. Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 181, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988). The PKPA follows on, and includes many of the provisions of, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), adopted in Vermont as 15 V.S.A. §§ 1031-1051. These acts were adopted to respond to "a growing public concern over the fact that thousands of children are shifted from state to state and from one family to another every
¶ 12. The PKPA applies equally to a visitation determination, requiring states to enforce "any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State." 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). Because the first custody and visitation determination with respect to IMJ was made by the Vermont court, we must first examine whether that court exercised jurisdiction "consistently with the provisions of" the PKPA. Id. If it did, and if it continued to have jurisdiction when Lisa filed her proceeding in the Virginia court, the Virginia court was without jurisdiction to modify the Vermont order. Id. § 1738A(g), (h).
¶ 13. In order for a Vermont court to exercise jurisdiction consistent with the PKPA, it must have jurisdiction under Vermont law, id. § 1738A(c)(1), and meet one of four conditions, id. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)-(D). In this case, it met the condition in subsection (A)(c)(2)(A)(ii) that Vermont "had been the child's home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State." Id. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(ii). For purposes of this provision, "home State" is defined to mean "the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months." Id. § 1738A(b)(4). Because Vermont had been IMJ's home state within six months before Lisa filed her dissolution petition in November 2003, Lisa had removed IMJ from Vermont, and Janet lived in Vermont on the date the dissolution proceeding was commenced, the requirements of subsection (A)(ii) were met. See Matthews v. Riley, 162 Vt. 401, 406, 649 A.2d 231, 236 (1994).
¶ 14. The PKPA also requires that the court have jurisdiction under Vermont law. Whether local jurisdiction is present is determined by the UCCJA. 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a); Matthews, 162 Vt. at 406, 649 A.2d at 235. For the exact reason that the Vermont proceeding met the PKPA condition discussed above, supra, ¶ 13, it met the identically-worded provision of the UCCJA. Compare 15 V.S.A. § 1032(a)(1)(B) with 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(ii). Thus, the family court had jurisdiction under Vermont law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(1).
¶ 15. Because the Vermont dissolution proceeding was still pending in July 2004, when Lisa filed her action in the Virginia court, and the Vermont proceeding was consistent with the PKPA, the Virginia court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 1738A(g) of the PKPA. That section specified that the court could not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding to determine the custody of, or visitation with, IMJ while the Vermont proceeding was pending. The Virginia court violated this section by exercising jurisdiction over the case filed by Lisa.
¶ 16. Because the Vermont court had issued a temporary custody and visitation
¶ 17. Again, the former requirement of continuing jurisdiction is met if it is authorized by the UCCJA. See Matthews, 162 Vt. at 407, 649 A.2d at 236-37. At the time the Virginia court acted, the Vermont court had jurisdiction to modify its own visitation order if:
15 V.S.A. § 1032(a)(2). These provisions were met because IMJ had recently resided in Vermont and the evidence of IMJ's relationship with Janet was present in Vermont. Matthews, 162 Vt. at 412, 649 A.2d at 239.
¶ 18. The Vermont court had continuing jurisdiction over the matter of Janet's visitation with IMJ. Therefore, the Virginia order extinguishing Janet's visitation right was issued in violation of § 1738A(h) of the PKPA. The Vermont court was not required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia order issued in violation of the PKPA. Matthews, 162 Vt. at 412-13, 649 A.2d at 240.
¶ 19. Lisa makes three arguments against applying this analysis in this case. First, she argues that the Virginia proceeding is a parentage action, and the PKPA does not apply to parentage actions. Even if we were to accept this argument, we do not understand how it would determine the question before us — that is, whether the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the Virginia parentage decision. Apparently, Lisa's logic is as follows: Although the Vermont court determined that Janet is a parent of IMJ, the Virginia court could and did determine that Janet is not a parent of IMJ; the Vermont court must now accept the Virginia determination and strike any visitation order based upon the Vermont parentage determination. Whether Virginia must enforce the Vermont visitation order is not directly involved in this appeal, but that is an entirely different question from whether full faith and credit requires the Vermont court to strike its own visitation order because the Virginia court refuses to recognize its validity based entirely on Virginia law. In Medveskas v. Karparis, 161 Vt. 387, 395, 640 A.2d 543, 546-47 (1994), we held that we would not extend full faith and credit to another state's custody determination if that state's court refused to extend full faith and credit to an earlier Vermont custody order. We will not give "greater faith and credit to the judgments
¶ 20. Lisa is making the curious argument that if the PKPA does not apply to this dispute, Vermont will be required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia parentage decision and custody and visitation order. Our cases have routinely stated exactly the opposite position — that is, in the absence of a requirement imposed by the PKPA, Vermont courts will not extend full faith and credit to another state's custody and visitation order. See Rocissono v. Spykes, 170 Vt. 309, 316, 749 A.2d 592, 597 (2000) (Arizona's assertion of jurisdiction over custody dispute was inconsistent with the PKPA "and thus not entitled to full faith and credit"); Columb v. Columb, 161 Vt. 103, 107, 633 A.2d 689, 691 (1993) (custody order that does not meet PKPA requirements "is not entitled to full faith and credit in other states").
¶ 21. In any event, we reject the argument that the PKPA is inapplicable. The PKPA applies to custody or visitation determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). It defines a "custody determination" as "a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the custody of a child, and includes permanent and temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications." Id. § 1738A(b)(3). It defines a visitation determination in nearly identical terms. Id. § 1738A(b)(9). Lisa's dissolution petition to the Rutland Family Court sought a custody determination, and the court's temporary order included a temporary determination of both custody and visitation. Lisa's parentage petition in the Virginia court sought a determination that Janet had no parental rights, and the Virginia court issued a temporary order requiring Janet's visitation to be supervised and then a permanent order that Janet had no right to visit IMJ. Plainly, the Virginia court decisions included visitation determinations as the term is defined in the PKPA. Just as plainly, the PKPA applied to those decisions.
¶ 22. Lisa's argument, then, is that a custody or visitation determination arising out of one kind of proceeding is covered by the PKPA, and a custody or visitation determination arising out of another is not. All of the decisions interpreting the PKPA in private family disputes conclude that the PKPA draws no such distinction. Martinez v. Reed, 623 F.Supp. 1050, 1055 (E.D.La.1985) (PKPA applies to guardianship decision); Guernsey v. Guernsey, 794 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (parentage); Ray v. Ray, 494 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (guardianship); In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632, 147 Ariz. 527, 711 P.2d 1200, 1206 (Ct.App.1985) (dependency proceeding initiated by grandfather), rev'd on other grounds, 147 Ariz. 584, 712 P.2d 431, 435 (1986); In re B.B.R., 566 A.2d 1032, 1040 n. 24 (D.C.1989) (habeas corpus); E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 446 A.2d 871, 876 (1982) (habeas corpus); In re Bean, 132 N.C. App. 363, 511 S.E.2d 683, 686 (1999) (termination of parental rights). In fact, this Court recently held that the PKPA applied to a guardianship proceeding from another state. Jackson v. Hendricks, 2005 VT 113, ¶ 9 n. 1, 179 Vt. ___, 893 A.2d 292 (mem.). The one case on which Lisa relies found that the PKPA did not apply to a parentage proceeding precisely because no party asked for a custody or visitation order and the court did not address custody or visitation. Sheila L. v. Ronald P.M., 195 W.Va. 210, 465 S.E.2d 210, 221 (1995). Such a situation is inapposite to the circumstances in this case.
¶ 23. We recognize that some courts have held the PKPA does not apply to neglect and dependency proceedings
¶ 24. For the above reasons, we reject Lisa's argument that the PKPA does not apply to the Virginia parentage decision. We hold that the PKPA applies to this case and does not command the Vermont court to give full faith and credit to the parentage decision of the Virginia court that was issued in violation of the PKPA.
¶ 25. Lisa's second argument is that the PKPA has been superseded by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2000), and DOMA requires that the Vermont court give full faith and credit to the Virginia decision and order. DOMA reads:
Id. Lisa argues that a Vermont civil union is a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under Vermont law and that Janet's right of visitation, if any, arises from that relationship. Thus, she argues that DOMA authorized the Virginia court to reject any right of visitation based on the Vermont court order, and the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the Virginia order.
¶ 26. The family court concluded that DOMA would not provide Lisa the relief she sought:
Janet urges us to affirm on a broader and different ground: that DOMA and the PKPA should be construed to be consistent;
¶ 27. We affirm on the ground employed by the Vermont court. This case is about whether the Vermont court must give full faith and credit to the decision of the Virginia court, and not the reverse. Unlike the PKPA, in no instance does DOMA require a court in one state to give full faith and credit to the decision of a court in another state. Its sole purpose is to provide an authorization not to give full faith and credit in the circumstances covered by the statute. Thus, DOMA does not aid Lisa's attack on the Vermont order.
¶ 28. Under Lisa's interpretation, we would be required to give full faith and credit to the Virginia court's decision not to give effect to the fully valid order of the Vermont court. Indeed, if we were to accept that argument, the Vermont biological parent of a child born to a civil union could always move to another state to make a visitation order unenforceable in every state, including Vermont. As we discussed above in relation to Lisa's PKPA argument, supra, ¶ 19, we held in Medveskas, 161 Vt. at 394, 640 A.2d at 546, that we will not give "greater faith and credit" to another state's judgment that is in conflict with a valid judgment of our own courts. Because we can affirm on this narrow ground, we need not reach the broader question of whether DOMA, and not the PKPA, governs to determine the effect of a Vermont custody or visitation decision based on a civil union.
¶ 29. Lisa's third ground for arguing the PKPA does not apply is that the civil union was void because both Janet and Lisa were residents of Virginia when they entered the civil union in Vermont, and, as a result, Virginia courts did not have to recognize it. We consider this argument in the next section of the opinion and reject it.
¶ 30. In summary, none of Lisa's arguments change our conclusion that this is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court's decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order.
II. The Validity of the Civil Union
¶ 31. Lisa next argues the civil union of her and Janet is void as a matter of law because it was entered into when both parties were residents of Virginia and would have been void if entered into in Virginia. She then argues that since the civil union is void, the temporary visitation order based upon the civil union is also void. In making these arguments, she relies first upon 15 V.S.A. § 6, which provides:
She argues that because same-sex legal unions are void in Virginia, Vermont must also find their union void. Lisa recognizes that § 6 alone, which applies to marriages, does not void the civil union. As we held in Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 201, 744 A.2d 864, 869 (1999), a union between partners of the same gender is not defined by Vermont law as a marriage. The Legislature explicitly codified this holding in 15 V.S.A. § 8.1999, No. 91 (Adj.Sess.), § 25. Thus, Lisa argues, § 6 applies to civil unions as well as marriages as a result of 15 V.S.A. § 1204(a), a section of the civil union statute, which states:
Accordingly, Lisa argues § 1204(a) incorporates § 6 and voids her union to Janet.
¶ 32. The Vermont court did not address these arguments because Lisa failed to raise them. Thus, Janet's first response on appeal is that we should not reach Lisa's arguments on this point because they have not been preserved. Janet also notes that even if § 6 applies to civil unions, whether § 6 would even fit the facts of this case is in dispute. For example, at the time the parties entered into the civil union in 2000, Virginia law prohibited "[a] marriage between persons of the same sex" and made such marriages entered into in another state "void" in Virginia, Va.Code Ann. § 20-45.2 (West 2005), but it was silent on the effect of civil unions. Only in 2004 did Virginia enact a comparable statute prohibiting civil unions. Id. § 20-45.3 (effective July 1, 2004). Thus, whether a civil union entered into in Vermont in 2000 would have been void if 15 V.S.A. § 6 applied remains a question. Further, § 6 applies only if the parties are "residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction." The record specifies that Lisa and Janet resided in Virginia at the time of the civil union, but it is silent on their intent for the future.
¶ 33. Lisa argues that despite these issues, we should decide the validity of the civil union because it is jurisdictional. Although we question that characterization, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits because it involves a pure question of law, on which our review is de novo, see, e.g., Kelly v. Lord, 173 Vt. 21, 34, 783 A.2d 974, 985 (2001) (exercising discretion to hear appeal from nonfinal judgments), and further involves a matter of public interest.
¶ 34. On the merits, we are guided at the outset by familiar canons of statutory construction. Our overall goal in construing a statute is to implement the intent of the Legislature. Farris v. Bryant Grinder Corp., 2005 VT 5, ¶ 8, 177 Vt. 456, 869 A.2d 131. In pursuing this goal, we normally apply the plain meaning of the statute if it is unambiguous. Id. Where there is uncertainty about legislative intent, "we must consider the entire statute, including its subject matter, effects and consequences, as well as the reason for and spirit of the law." In re Hinsdale Farm, 2004 VT 72, ¶ 5, 177 Vt. 115, 858 A.2d 249.
¶ 35. Here, we believe that the plain meaning of the civil union statute, 15 V.S.A. § 1204(a), is inconsistent with Lisa's argument and does not incorporate § 6. Section 1204 plainly addresses the responsibilities of persons who have entered into a civil union and not the eligibility for that status. This plain meaning is reinforced by the fact that the Legislature specifically included another section in the same chapter, entitled "Requisites of a valid civil union," id. § 1202, referring to eligibility for civil unions, and did not include residency as one of its requirements. More generally, the statute on which Lisa relies to support her claim that the civil union is void, § 6, is part of chapter 1 of Title 15, which establishes the requirements of marriage. Where the Legislature intended that chapter 1's requirements apply to civil unions, it said so directly by a separate provision of the civil union chapter, see id. § 1203 (disallowing parties from entering into civil unions with the same specified relatives the marriage statute also prohibits parties from marrying), or by amending
¶ 36. Beyond the statute's plain language, there are other indications that the Legislature did not intend § 6 apply to civil unions. First, it is evident the Legislature expected that nonresidents would obtain civil unions, as it specifically provided that any town clerk in the state could issue a license to applicants "if neither is a resident of the state." 18 V.S.A. § 5160(a). We take judicial notice that Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions. Thus, under Lisa's broad interpretation of 15 V.S.A. § 6, which she applies even to states with no explicit prohibition on civil unions, no resident of another state who intended to remain a resident of that state could have validly entered into a Vermont civil union because no other state allowed civil unions at that time.
¶ 37. Moreover, where the Legislature intended to impose a residency requirement on couples in civil unions — that is, in the case of dissolution — it stated so explicitly. See 15 V.S.A. § 1206 ("The dissolution of civil unions shall follow the same procedures . . . that are involved in the dissolution of marriage . . ., including any residency requirements."). In addition, the Legislature specifically required town clerks to provide civil union applicants with information to advise them "that Vermont residency may be required for dissolution of a civil union in Vermont." 18 V.S.A. § 5160(f) (emphasis added). In this context, we take the absence of an explicit statement that residency would normally be required for civil union formation as a strong indication that the Legislature intended no such requirement.
¶ 38. Finally, the Legislature has charged the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Health with providing public information about the requirements and procedures of the statute, see 15 V.S.A. § 1207(a) (Commissioner of Health to supply forms); 18 V.S.A. § 5160(f) (Secretary of State to provide information to be handed out by town clerks), and created and charged the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission with implementing a plan "to inform members of the public . . . about the act," 1999, No. 91 (Adj.Sess.), § 40(c). We give some deference to the construction of the applicable statutes by these implementing agencies. Laumann v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2004 VT 60, ¶ 7, 177 Vt. 52, 857 A.2d 309; Agency of Natural Res. v. Deso, 2003 VT 36, ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 513, 824 A.2d 558 (mem.).
¶ 39. Although the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission has not provided additional public commentary, it issued a report in 2002 that stated that 4,371 civil unions had been completed as of January 2002, and that:
Report of the Vt. Civil Union Review Comm'n, Finding 3 (Jan.2002), http://www.leg.state. vt.us/baker/FinalCURCReportfor2002.htm (last visited July 31, 2006). It concluded that "Act 91 Is Working As Intended." Id., Conclusion 6. The Commission could not reach that conclusion if it found that the Legislature intended to prohibit nonresidents from entering civil unions in Vermont because their states of residency would not recognize their unions. Further, the Legislature has taken no action in response to the Commission's report, as one might expect if the overwhelming use of civil unions by nonresidents was unintended.
¶ 40. We hold that the Legislature did not intend to apply to civil unions the prohibition on certain nonresidents entering into Vermont marriages. As a result, we hold that the civil union between Lisa and Janet was valid. Accordingly, we reject Lisa's argument that the temporary visitation order is void because the civil union is void.
III. The Parentage Determination
¶ 41. Lisa's third argument attacks the temporary visitation order on the basis that Janet is not a parent of IMJ.
This statute applies to civil unions by virtue of § 1204(f):
See also id. § 1204(d) ("The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.").
¶ 42. Lisa contends that because the Legislature used the word "natural" in § 308(4), it must have intended the presumption of parentage to apply only to a person who is biologically connected to the child. She argues, therefore, that because she is IMJ's biological mother, and Janet is not, Janet cannot be a parent of IMJ. If Janet is not IMJ's parent, Lisa continues, then the family court erred in awarding Janet visitation.
¶ 43. The Vermont court responded to Lisa's argument by holding that, because Lisa gave birth through artificial insemination, the presumption of parentage contained in § 308 applied to Janet, just as it would have applied to Lisa's husband if she had had one at the time of the birth.
¶ 44. Section 308(4) was not intended to produce the result Lisa advances and is ultimately irrelevant to the circumstances creating parenthood in this case. The presumption provision was added to § 308 quite recently, see 1993, No. 228 (Adj.Sess.), § 13 (adding subsection (4) to 15 V.S.A. § 308), apparently to make the collection of child support easier, see 15 V.S.A. § 293(b) (where presumption applies, it is a "sufficient basis for initiating a support action . . . without any further proceedings to establish parentage"). We have examined the legislative history of the statute and can find no indication that it was intended to govern the rights of parentage of children born through artificial insemination or to same-sex partners, or to do anything other than provide a speedy recovery of child support. Thus, to accept Lisa's argument, we would have to find that Lisa's desired effect of § 308(4) is an unintended consequence of a legislative amendment enacted for a different purpose. As explained below, we find § 308(4) does not have that unintended consequence.
¶ 45. Ultimately, we have both a short and a long answer to Lisa's argument regarding the effect of § 308(4), and, because of the public interest in the issue, we provide both. The short answer is that the issue is controlled by this Court's decision in Paquette v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 83, 499 A.2d 23 (1985), under which the presumption of parentage contained in § 308 is irrelevant. In Paquette, the parties were involved in a divorce and the husband sought custody of both the child born of the marriage and another child born of the wife's prior marriage. The lower court ruled that custody could not be awarded to a stepfather and, on that basis, denied the husband custody of the older child. On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that where the stepparent has assumed the role
¶ 46. Paquette does not explicitly discuss visitation, but its rationale fully applies to visitation as well as to custody. See S. Silverman, Stepparent Visitation Rights: Toward the Best Interests of the Child, 30 J. Fam. L. 943, 948 (1992) (characterizing Paquette as a stepparent visitation case). In fact, the concerns expressed about the possible interference with the rights of biological parents are of much less weight in the case of visitation.
¶ 47. Under Paquette, regardless of the meaning of 15 V.S.A. § 308(4), Janet has at least the status of a stepparent of IMJ by virtue of § 1204(d) and (f). Assuming extraordinary circumstances are even required for a visitation order, we conclude that extraordinary circumstances are present in this case. The court's findings demonstrate that Janet acted in loco parentis with respect to IMJ as long as Janet and Lisa were together. Thus, our short answer to Lisa's argument is that the visitation order is supported by Paquette even if Janet is not considered IMJ's parent under § 308(4).
¶ 48. There is also a longer answer to Lisa's argument that biology must control the parentage issue. We find that Janet has status as a parent, even beyond her stepparent status under Paquette. If we were to accept Lisa's opposing position and conclude biology controlled, a child born from artificial insemination would have no second parent — whether that status is sought by a man married to the child's mother or by a woman or man in a civil union with the child's biological parent — unless the putative second parent adopted the child. In fact, the logical extension of Lisa's position that a biological connection is necessary for parentage is that the husband of a wife who bears an artificially inseminated child cannot be the father of that child, just like a civil union spouse cannot be a parent to the child. Such a holding would cause tremendous disruption and uncertainty to some existing families who have conceived via artificial insemination or other means of reproductive technology, and we must tread carefully so that we incur such a consequence only if necessary. As a result, we reach the broader and longer answer to Lisa's argument and conclude that such a holding would be wrong.
¶ 49. We are facing a situation similar to that in In re B.L.V.B., 160 Vt. 368, 628 A.2d 1271 (1993), which was decided before the civil union law and involved a same-gender couple. As in this case, one member of the couple in In re B.L.V.B. conceived a child through artificial insemination, and her partner sought to adopt the child to also become a parent. The probate court ruled that the governing statute, which stated that a child's natural parent's rights shall not be affected when the parent's spouse adopts the child, required that if the adoption were granted to the same-sex partner, the biological mother's parental rights would be terminated because the adopting parent was not the biological parent's spouse (or the child's stepparent).
¶ 50. Despite the language of the governing statute, we reversed in that case, holding that the probate court's result was at odds with the intent of the Legislature: "[W]e cannot conclude that the legislature ever meant to terminate the parental rights of a biological parent who intended to continue raising a child with the help of
Id. at 375-76, 628 A.2d at 1275-76.
¶ 51. The disruption that would be caused by requiring adoption of all children conceived by artificial insemination by nonbiological parents is particularly at variance with the legislative intent for civil unions. The Legislature's intent in enacting the civil union laws was to create legal equality between relationships based on civil unions and those based on marriage. The Legislature added a separate section on the construction of the civil union statutes that provides in part:
1999, No. 91 (Adj.Sess.), § 39(a). The result of Lisa's statutory argument would be to produce separate benefits and protections for couples in civil unions. Under her argument, no partner in a civil union could be the parent of a child conceived by the other partner without formally adopting that child.
¶ 52. As in In re B.L.V.B., we face the problem here of a family with a child created by artificial insemination, and the Legislature has not dealt directly with new reproductive technologies and the families that result from those technologies. Nonetheless, the courts must define and protect the rights and interests of the children that are part of these families. See In re B.L.V.B., 160 Vt. at 376, 628 A.2d at 1276; In re Estate of Kolacy, 332 N.J.Super. 593, 753 A.2d 1257, 1263 (2000) (finding that even though child was conceived via assisted reproductive technology, "once a child has come into existence, she is a full-fledged human being and is entitled to all of the love, respect, dignity and legal protection which that status requires"). We express, as many other courts have, a preference for legislative action, see, e.g., In re M.J., 203 Ill.2d 526, 272 Ill.Dec. 329, 787 N.E.2d 144, 150 (2003); Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285,
¶ 53. With this background in mind, we turn back to § 308(4). The purpose of the statute is to create a rebuttable presumption, the main effect of which is to assign the burden of production. Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514, 530, 725 A.2d 904, 915 (1998) (Dooley, J., dissenting). Thus, the presumption serves the purpose of allowing more summary support actions even in the absence of a parentage adjudication, which effectively eases child support decisions. See 15 V.S.A. § 293(b) (where presumption of parentage under § 308 applies, a support action against the presumed parent may be filed without a prior parentage adjudication). Because the statute creates only a presumption, however, it does not prevent proof of the fact in issue through other means. Thus, if the presumption did not apply,
¶ 54. Lisa focuses almost exclusively on the word "natural," finding in its use the legislative intent that only biological parents can be parents for purposes of the parentage statute.
¶ 55. We reach then the ultimate question — whether Janet is a parent within the meaning of the parentage act — without consideration of § 308, which is irrelevant to both sides of the argument in this case. We have held that the term "parent" is specific to the context of the family involved. For instance, in In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 302, 553 A.2d 1078, 1083-84 (1988), we held that the biological father of a child born out of wedlock is not a "parent" for purposes of 14 V.S.A. § 2645, one of our guardianship statutes. Again, we stress that the difficulty in interpretation in this context arises because
¶ 56. Many factors are present here that support a conclusion that Janet is a parent, including, first and foremost, that Janet and Lisa were in a valid legal union at the time of the child's birth. The other factors include the following. It was the expectation and intent of both Lisa and Janet that Janet would be IMJ's parent. Janet participated in the decision that Lisa would be artificially inseminated to bear a child and participated actively in the prenatal care and birth. Both Lisa and Janet treated Janet as IMJ's parent during the time they resided together, and Lisa identified Janet as a parent of IMJ in the dissolution petition. Finally, there is no other claimant to the status of parent, and, as a result, a negative decision would leave IMJ with only one parent. The sperm donor was anonymous and is making no claim to be IMJ's parent. If Janet had been Lisa's husband, these factors would make Janet the parent of the child born from the artificial insemination. See generally People v. Sorensen, 68 Cal.2d 280, 66 Calaptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495 (1968). Because of the equality of treatment of partners in civil unions, the same result applies to Lisa. 15 V.S.A. § 1204.
¶ 57. Virtually all modern decisions from other jurisdictions support this result, although the theories vary. See, e.g., Brown v. Brown, 83 Ark.App. 217, 125 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Ct.App.2003) (husband estopped from denying child support where husband knew wife was using artificial insemination to have child); Sorensen, 66 Cal.Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d at 498-500 (husband is lawful father of child conceived through artificial insemination born during marriage to child's mother); In re Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App.4th 1410, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 280, 286-87 (Ct.App.1998) (finding virtually all decisions hold husband to be parent based on his consent to artificial insemination); In re M.J., 272 Ill.Dec. 329, 787 N.E.2d at 152 (mother of children conceived through artificial insemination may seek to establish paternity of man with whom she had ten-year intimate relationship based on theories of "oral contract or promissory estoppel"); Levin v. Levin, 645 N.E.2d 601, 604-05 (Ind.1994) (husband who orally consented to artificial insemination of wife estopped from denying fatherhood of child); R.S. v. R.S., 9 Kan.App.2d 39, 670 P.2d 923, 928 (1983) (husband who orally consented to artificial insemination of wife estopped from denying fatherhood); State ex rel. H. v. P., 90 A.D.2d 434, 457 N.Y.S.2d 488, 492 (1982) (wife estopped from denying husband's paternity where she fostered parent-child relationship); Brooks v. Fair, 40 Ohio App.3d 202, 532 N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ct.App.1988) (public policy disallows wife from denying paternity of husband where parties agreed during marriage to conceive via means of artificial insemination); In re Baby Doe, 291 S.C. 389, 353 S.E.2d 877, 878 (1987) (husband is legal father of child where he consented to artificial insemination of wife during marriage); see generally A. Stephens, Annotation, Parental rights of man who is not biological or adoptive father of child but was husband or cohabitant of mother when child was conceived or born, 84 A.L.R.4th 655 (1991). Some courts find the party a parent as a result of contract theory or estoppel. E.g., R.S., 670 P.2d at 928. Estoppel is often invoked because of the strong reliance interests that arise from consensual artificial insemination. Other courts reach the result more as a matter of policy, particularly stressing the adverse consequences of leaving the child without a parent despite the clear intention of the parties. E.g., Brooks, 532
¶ 58. This is not a close case under the precedents from other states. Because so many factors are present in this case that allow us to hold that the non-biologically-related partner is the child's parent, we need not address which factors may be dispositive on the issue in a closer case. We do note that, in accordance with the common law, the couple's legal union at the time of the child's birth is extremely persuasive evidence of joint parentage. See People ex rel. R.T.L., 780 P.2d 508, 515 n. 11 (Colo.1989) ("We acknowledge that the presumption that a child born during wedlock is the legitimate child of the marriage was one of the strongest presumptions known to the common law."); Cicero v. Cicero, 58 A.D.2d 573, 395 N.Y.S.2d 117, 117 (1977) (presumption of legitimacy attached to "issue of the marriage"); LC v. TL, 870 P.2d 374, 380 (Wyo. 1994) ("The presumption of legitimacy is one of the strongest in law."); see also Godin, 168 Vt. at 522, 725 A.2d at 910 ("Thus, the State retains a strong and direct interest in ensuring that children born of a marriage do not suffer financially or psychologically merely because of a parent's belated and self-serving concern over a child's biological origins.").
¶ 59. Lisa raises three additional reasons why we cannot affirm the temporary visitation award. First, she argues that awarding Janet visitation, without a finding that Lisa is unfit to parent, interferes with her exclusive constitutional right to parent her child. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 72-73, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (indicating fundamental due process right of parents to make child rearing decisions). This argument was not adequately raised below and has been waived. See Will v. Mill Condo. Owners' Ass'n, 2004 VT 22, ¶ 4, 176 Vt. 380, 848 A.2d 336 (rejecting claim that mere mention of argument in one pretrial memorandum preserved issue for appeal). In any event, we reject it. Janet was awarded visitation because she is a parent of IMJ. Lisa's parental rights are not exclusive. See In re L.B., 155 Wn.2d 679, 122 P.3d 161, 178 (2005).
¶ 60. We have a similar response to Lisa's argument that Janet's parental status must be determined under Virginia law. Again, the argument was not preserved below. See Adams v. Adams, 2005 VT 4, ¶ 15, 177 Vt. 448, 869 A.2d 124 (arguments not raised below are not preserved for appeal). In any event, we also reject this argument. We have adopted the "most significant relationship" test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 287 (1971) in determining choice-of-law questions. Id. (law of the state with the most significant relationship to the child and parent determines legitimacy); see Myers v. Langlois, 168 Vt. 432, 434, 721 A.2d 129, 130 (1998). As we held in the first section, the Vermont court had jurisdiction to adjudicate custody and visitation of IMJ under both the PKPA and the UCCJA. Although these acts primarily determine jurisdiction, their provisions are such that they establish the state with the most significant relationship to a child custody or visitation dispute. Stubbs v. Weathersby, 320 Or. 620, 892 P.2d 991, 997-98 (1995). Accordingly, we conclude that where jurisdiction is exercised consistent with the PKPA and UCCJA, the law of the forum state is applicable. In this case, as discussed in depth supra, ¶¶ 9-18, Vermont had jurisdiction under both statutes, and, accordingly, Vermont law applies here.
¶ 61. In reaching this conclusion, we do not hold that there is an actual conflict between the law of Vermont and that of
¶ 62. Lisa next argues that the court erred by awarding visitation without first determining parentage. Temporary relief requests in divorce or dissolution proceedings must be heard and decided promptly. 15 V.S.A. § 594a. Necessarily, a temporary order will not be based on the full record required to support a final order. A speedy decision was required in this case to allow Janet to have some contact with IMJ, pending resolution of the dispute over custody and visitation. Meanwhile, Lisa went through three lawyers during the early stage of the dissolution action. Her complaint alleged that Janet was a parent of IMJ, and she maintained that position through the first day of the temporary relief hearing. Indeed, her counsel stated on the record that Lisa waived any claim that Janet was not a parent of IMJ. Thereafter, with a new lawyer, she attempted to change her position, to roughly the position she espouses here. She sought to delay the temporary relief proceeding while she adjudicated whether Janet was a parent, and she argued that the court should give no interim relief until parenthood was fully resolved. We believe the family court acted within its broad discretion in awarding temporary visitation as it did, even if it could not make a final determination of parentage. See id. (court can make such orders pending final hearing as it could upon final hearing); V.R.F.P. 4(c)(2).
¶ 63. In any event, the timing of the court's action was harmless in this case. The family court eventually ruled
¶ 64. Finally, Lisa argues that we should reverse the contempt determination because it is unsupported by the record. The transcripts show that on May 26, 2004, the trial judge granted Janet parent-child contact via a bench ruling issued on the record, and Janet's lawyer was to prepare a written order. The oral order provided for visitation for the weekends of June 4-6 and June 18-20, the week in July starting July 25, and one week per month in Vermont starting August 2004. The order also provided for Janet to have daily telephone contact with IMJ. At the hearing, Lisa explicitly stated that she waived any objection to the visitation on June 4-6, June 18-20, and for the week in July beginning July 25: "[W]e have no objection to the visitation proposed [regarding these dates]. . . ." Janet's lawyer filed the proposed order on May 28, but it was not signed and filed until June 17. Meanwhile, on June 9, Lisa filed a motion to reconsider the order, saying that it had been "issued from the bench." The written order, requiring the same visitation as previously had been ordered from the bench, was served on Lisa on June 25.
¶ 65. On June 5, 2004, despite the fact that the order had not yet been reduced to writing, Lisa complied with the visitation order for that weekend. Nonetheless, although the parties' versions of the reasons for the lack of visitation differ, Janet was not able to see the child as ordered on the weekend of June 18 or during the week of July 25. Janet has not had parent-child visitation with IMJ since the weekend of June 4, 2004. Both the oral and written orders also provided that Janet could have telephone contact with IMJ "once per day," but Lisa did not allow this contact, and it did not occur. Janet moved for a determination that Lisa was in contempt of the court order, and the court held a hearing at which both Janet and Lisa testified. Lisa acknowledged at the contempt hearing that, even before an order had been issued by the Virginia court, she did not agree with the family court's visitation order, and had no intention of complying with it. On September 2, the Vermont court found that Lisa had failed to comply with the parent-child contact requirements, specifically finding that "Lisa has wilfully refused to comply with this court's order regarding visitation since mid-June, solely because she does not like it."
¶ 66. Lisa makes no argument on appeal to justify her refusal to allow telephone contact between Janet and IMJ. At the contempt hearing, Lisa suggested that the telephone contact did not occur because the times during which Janet attempted to contact the child were inconvenient; Janet, in turn, stated that her numerous and repeated attempts always resulted in busy signals, rebuffs by Lisa, and answering machines. Lisa acknowledges that Janet and IMJ did not actually converse on the telephone after the weekend of June 18, as was required per the temporary order.
¶ 67. Lisa argues on appeal that she did not violate the order with respect to the July visitation because Janet appeared at her home when she knew Lisa and IMJ
¶ 68. With respect to the June visitation, Lisa makes a legal argument that she had no obligation to provide visitation because the written order had not been served upon her. Lisa's argument is disingenuous. The family court made the temporary visitation order orally from the bench and on the record on May 26, 2004. Lisa's presence at that hearing, with representation by counsel, is undisputed. Furthermore, at the hearing, Lisa explicitly stated through her attorney that she did not object to the June and July visitation dates. Lisa then further acknowledged the oral visitation order in her motion to set it aside. Lisa has not argued, and cannot argue, that she had no notice of the court's visitation order, nor does she argue that it did not provide for visitation during the weekend of June 18. She argues only that a written order had not yet been served as of the June 18 visitation date.
¶ 69. We can find no requirement that a temporary visitation order be in writing, beyond the writing created by the transcript of an oral order placed on the record. We have recently affirmed a contempt adjudication based on an oral visitation order. See Root v. Root, 2005 VT 93, ¶ 13, 178 Vt. 634, 882 A.2d 1202 (mem.) (affirming contempt based on violation of oral order that reiterated preexisting obligation parent conceded was not followed); see also 15 V.S.A. § 603 (authorizing contempt proceedings for disobeying "lawful order," without reference to manner of order). We similarly conclude that the oral order and full notice to Lisa supported the contempt adjudication in this case.
¶ 70. Apparently, Lisa's response to her failure to comply with the August visitation provisions is that the Virginia decision superseded the Vermont order. We have rejected that argument as a matter of law. Moreover, Lisa could have complied with the Vermont order without violating any order from the Virginia court.
¶ 71. The family court found that Lisa had "wilfully refused to comply with [its] order regarding visitation," and we find no reason to overturn that finding. See Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt. 50, 52-53, 757 A.2d 469, 472 (2000) (family court findings will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous). For the above reasons, we reject Lisa's arguments that the family court erred in finding her in contempt and remand for the imposition of sanctions.
¶ 72. In conclusion, the family court properly assumed jurisdiction of the action to dissolve the civil union between Lisa and Janet. The civil union was not void. The court properly found that it had jurisdiction to issue a temporary order providing Janet visitation with IMJ, and it was not required to recognize and enforce a conflicting decision of the Virginia court. Finally, the record supports the family court's decision that Lisa is in contempt of court for willfully violating the temporary visitation order.
Affirmed and remanded.