Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins

¶ 1. Lisa Miller-Jenkins appeals a family court decision finding her ex-partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, to be a parent of their three-year-old child conceived via artificial insemination. On appeal, Lisa 1 contests three family court decisions. First, she appeals the *445 decision by the Vermont family court that found both her and Janet to be legal parents of their child [hereinafter IMJ], and awarded Lisa temporary legal and physical rights and responsibilities of the child and Janet temporary parent-child contact. Second, Lisa appeals the family court’s refusal to give full faith and credit to a Virginia court order, issued after the Vermont court’s temporary custody and visitation order, that was contrary to the Vermont decree and that precluded Janet’s visitation rights. Finally, Lisa appeals an order of contempt issued by the family court based on her failure to abide by the temporary visitation order.

¶ 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 child[] of 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 *446 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 the parties from a remedy,” and made clear that the temporary order for parent-child contact was to be followed. It added that “[flailure of the custodial parent to allow contact will result in an immediate hearing on the need to change custody.”

¶ 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.

*447 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 (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 year while their parents or other persons battle over their custody in the courts of several states.” National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Prefatory Note (1968). The PKPA embodies preferences “to leave jurisdiction in the state which rendered the original decree[,]... to promote the best interests of the child[,]... [and to] discouraged interstate abduction and other unilateral removals of children for the purpose of obtaining *448 a favorable custody decree.” Michalik v. Michalik, 494 N.W.2d 391, 398 (Wis. 1993).

¶ 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)(l), 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)(l).

*449 ¶ 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 order, the Virginia court was also governed by § 1738A(h) of the PKPA. That section prohibited the Virginia court from modifying the Vermont court’s order unless the Vermont court “no longer [had] jurisdiction to modify such determination” or had “declined to exercise jurisdiction to modify such determination.” Since the Vermont court continued to exercise jurisdiction over the Vermont proceeding, the Virginia court could have modified the order only if the Vermont court had lost its initial jurisdiction. Under the PKPA, a court that had initial jurisdiction to issue a custody or visitation order continues to have jurisdiction as long as it continues to have jurisdiction under state law and one of the contestants remains a resident of the state. Id. § 1738A(d); Matthews, 162 Vt. at 407, 649 A.2d at 236. The latter requirement is met because Janet continues to reside in Vermont.

¶ 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:

(2) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because:

(A) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state; and

(B) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

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 *450 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 of the courts of other states” than we give to our own courts’ judgments. Id. at 394, 640 A.2d at 546 (quotations omitted). The same reasoning applies here.

¶ 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 *451 entitled to Ml 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, 711 P.2d 1200, 1206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985) (dependency proceeding initiated by grandfather), rev’d on other grounds, 712 P.2d 431, 435 (Ariz. 1986); In re B.B.R., 566 A.2d 1032, 1040 n.24 (D.C. 1989) (habeas corpus); E.E.B. v. D.A., 446 A.2d 871, 876 (N.J. 1982) (habeas corpus); In re Bean, 511 S.E.2d 683, 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 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. 549, 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 *452 PM., 465 S.E.2d 210, 221 (W. Va. 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 where the state is intervening to protect the child, see In re A.L.H., 160 Vt. 410, 413 n.2, 630 A.2d 1288, 1290 n.2 (1993) (citing cases), and Lisa has referenced these cases. These cases rely on three rationales: (1) the UCCJA explicitly applies to “neglect and dependency proceedings,” 15 V.S.A. § 1031(3), and the PKPA, which was drafted to generally track the UCCJA, intentionally omitted that language, see L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647, 661-62 (Colo. 1995); In re L.W., 486 N.W.2d 486, 500-01 (Neb. 1992); State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Avinger, 720 P.2d 290, 292 (N.M. 1986); (2) the purpose of the PKPA is to address the interstate enforcement of child custody decrees, and, in particular, particularly to address child-snatching, and not to interfere with a state’s protection of a dependent and neglected child, see L.G., 890 P.2d at 661-62; In re L.W., 486 N.W.2d at 500-01; Avinger, 720 P.2d at 292; and (3) the continuing jurisdiction section of the PKPA, § 1738A(d), refers to a contestant, a term defined in § 1738A(b)(2) not to include the state, see In re L.W., 486 N.W.2d at 500-01. None of these rationales suggests that the PKPA should not apply in this visitation dispute between private parties.

¶ 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:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

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 *453 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:

Nor is the application of the PKPA in this case, as Lisa’s counsel has suggested, hindered by the more recently enacted Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)— Whether or not a Virginia court may be permitted under DOMA to decline to give effect to the judicial proceedings in Vermont in a Virginia court is not relevant to the essential question before this court, or before the court of Virginia as a prerequisite for exercising its jurisdiction, of whether this Vermont court had jurisdiction under Vermont law over this dispute before it was filed in Virginia. Clearly Vermont has jurisdiction and therefore the Commonwealth of Virginia’s judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit.

Janet urges us to affirm on a broader and different ground: that DOMA and the PKPA should be construed to be consistent; this consistent construction would be that DOMA does not apply to custody and visitation orders.

¶ 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 *454 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:

A marriage shall not be contracted in this state by a person residing and intending to continue to reside in another state or jurisdiction, if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other state or jurisdiction. Every marriage solemnized in this state in violation of this section shall be null and void.

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:

Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive *455 from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.

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 argu *456 ment 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 l’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 the marriage statute so that it also applied to civil unions, id. § 4 (voiding marriages when previous marriage or civil union is still in force). These provisions would be superfluous if § 1204 generally made chapter 1 applicable to civil unions. Accordingly, there is no indication that the Legislature intended to apply chapter 1 generally to civil unions or to apply specific sections beyond those explicitly adopted.

¶ 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. 2 Section 5160(a) of Title 18 evidences the absurdity of that claim.

¶ 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 *457 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.). 3 The Secretary of State has created an online pamphlet, entitled “The Vermont Guide to Civil Unions” (revised Aug. 2005), which states in Part 3 that “[tjhere are no residency or citizenship requirements for Vermont Civil Unions.” http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html (last visited July 31, 2006). The Commissioner of Health has also posted an online pamphlet entitled “Civil Unions in Vermont: Questions and Answers to Help you Plan your Vermont Civil Union.” It states in response to the first question, ‘Who can form a civil union?,” that “[y]ou do not have to be Vermont residents to form a civil union in *458 Vermont.” http://healthvermont.gov/research/records/civil.pdf (last visited July 31, 2006). Necessarily, these officials have adopted a different construction of the civil union statutes from that urged by Lisa in this case.

¶ 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:

Most civil unions have involved parties who are nonresidents. The proportion of civil unions involving Vermont residents continues to decrease. In July 2000, 29% of civil unions involved Vermont residents. This number dropped to 22% in August and September of 2000, and, currently, 11% of people entering civil unions are Vermonters. Residents from 48 states, the District of Columbia, Canada and several other countries have established civil unions in Vermont. Besides Vermont, the largest numbers of civil union parties have been residents of New York, Massachusetts and California.

Report of the Vt. Civil Union Review Comm’n, Finding 3 (Jan. 2002), http://www.leg.state.vt.us/baker/Final%20CURC%20Report%20for%2 02002.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.

*459 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. 4 She argues that Janet cannot be a parent of IMJ because she is not biologically connected to her. In making this argument, Lisa looks primarily to the Parentage Proceedings Act, 15 V.S.A §§ 301-308. Under § 308(4):

A person alleged to be a parent shall be reb