Blocker v. Blocker
391 P.3d 1051
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2004 with joint legal custody and shared parent time; Child primarily resided with Mother.
- In 2009 the court awarded Father sole legal and physical custody, citing Mother’s failure to cooperate with professionals and interference; Mother was to have supervised parent time unless she satisfied conditions (therapy, Special Master), with unsupervised time contingent on compliance.
- In 2014 Mother filed an order to show cause seeking statutory visitation; the district court treated it as a petition to modify and ordered an evaluation and temporary supervised visits.
- At an August 2014 status conference the court received a home study and temporarily granted Mother unsupervised parent time; Father objected that he was unprepared to cross-examine and expected an evidentiary hearing.
- No further live testimony was taken; at a June 2015 hearing the court found the home study (described as limited) sufficient and made the unsupervised parent-time order permanent, but entered no written findings of fact.
- Father appealed, arguing the court failed to make required findings of a material change in circumstances before modifying parent time; appellate court remanded for findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may modify parent-time without finding a material change in circumstances | Court erred by not making any finding that circumstances materially changed since 2009 custody order | Court treated matter as within its discretion and relied on the file/home study as satisfactory evidence | Remanded: court must make findings showing a change in circumstances (and best-interest analysis) — existing order lacked findings so appellate review impossible |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting modification | Father: only a limited home study was in the file; no live testimony to support permanent change | Mother: home study and file provided satisfactory evidence to exercise discretion | Court relied on home study but appellate court found the record and lack of findings inadequate for review |
| Procedural due process complaints (e.g., hearing type, notice, opportunity to cross-examine) | Father: was denied opportunity to present/cross-examine witnesses and not given proper notice of evidentiary hearing | Mother: proceeded based on court’s handling and submitted materials | Appellate court declined to reach these claims on merits (inadequately briefed); remand may clarify factual record |
| Adequacy of district court’s findings generally | Father: findings required to show legal basis and best-interest determination were missing | Mother: implicitly relied on court’s broad discretion | Appellate court held findings were insufficient and remanded for detailed findings of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (requires two-step analysis to modify custody: show material change in circumstances, then decide custody in child’s best interest)
- Becker v. Becker, 694 P.2d 608 (Utah 1984) (modification of visitation follows same two-step framework as custody, though change required may be less than for custody)
- Jones v. Jones, 374 P.3d 45 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (modification of parent time still requires a showing of changed circumstances; findings can be satisfied by specific factual findings tied to the modification)
- Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (trial courts must make adequate and detailed findings in custody-related decisions to permit appellate review)