whom, children live and spend their time is that courts can and often do award physical rights and responsibilities to the custodial parent, while awarding shared legal rights and responsibilities pursuant to the parties’ agreement, or even primary legal rights and responsibilities to the parent who is not assigned physical rights and responsibilities. See, e.g., Shea, 167 Vt. at 496, 712 A.2d at 888 (affirming order awarding physical rights and responsibilities to mother and legal decisionmaking relating to education and medical care to father). The kind of cooperation reflected and cultivated by an agreement to share legal rights and responsibilities is generally a good thing, and should be encouraged in appropriate cases. See Gazo v. Gazo, 166 Vt. 434, 443, 697 A.2d 342, 347 (1997) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 85. The kind of shared decisionmaking
recognizing trial courts flexibility to fashion an award that keeps both parents involved in decisionmaking when such an award is in the best interests of the child holding that cooperation between parents is essential if the arrangement is to be in the best interests of the child holding that it is within the courts discretion to award both reinstatement and punitive damages for violation of  2114 although finding that the district courts decision not to award such remedies did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that when a parent asserts that an agreement is not in the best interests of a child the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set