Bartlett v. Bartlett
2015 UT App 2
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents divorced in 2008; two children involved. Temporary custody initially to Father; bench trial in April 2012 resulted in award of primary physical custody to Mother and joint legal custody to both parents.
- Trial court described both parents as "fit and proper" and found them "evenly balanced" on most factors, but concluded Mother was better able to "support and sustain a positive relationship" between the children and Father.
- At a post-trial review hearing (before findings were entered), Father accused Mother of denying court-ordered visitation, causing school decline, possible involvement in domestic violence, and being pregnant by a man she was not married to; the court admonished Mother for failing to follow the visitation order.
- The custody evaluator and the guardian ad litem recommended Father retain primary physical custody; Mother’s expert did not recommend primary custody for Mother (only increased parent-time).
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the trial court’s findings were inadequate to support awarding Mother primary physical custody and (2) the court impermissibly considered ex parte communications (letters) from Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Bartlett (Father) Argument | Bartlett (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s findings adequately support awarding Mother primary physical custody | Findings lack subsidiary facts and rationale; do not explain why Mother was awarded custody over Father | Implicitly: findings and record justify award (both parents fit; Mother better on the key factor) | Vacated custody award; findings were inadequate — remand for supplemental findings and reconsideration |
| Whether court improperly considered ex parte communications from Mother | Court received letters from Mother and thus erred / displayed bias | No disqualifying ex parte communications shown; exchange at review hearing did not establish prejudicial outside communications | Claim rejected; Father failed to show ex parte communication produced bias or personal knowledge requiring disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrus v. Andrus, 169 P.3d 754 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (findings must include subsidiary facts showing steps leading to ultimate conclusions)
- In re Young, 984 P.2d 997 (Utah 1999) (ex parte communications do not automatically require disqualification; must show personal bias or prejudicial effect)