444 P.3d 541
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents divorced in 2004 with Mother having primary physical residence; in 2010 the court awarded Father sole legal and physical custody and imposed supervised parent-time for Mother until she changed her mindset and complied with therapy/special-master requirements.
- Due to cost and service availability, the 2010 Order allowed temporary unsupervised parent-time only if Mother retained a special master and engaged in individual and joint therapy; until verification, visits remained supervised.
- In 2014 the court temporarily allowed unsupervised parent-time based on a home study; about a year later the court made unsupervised parent-time permanent without written findings, prompting Father’s appeal (Blocker I).
- This court remanded for detailed findings showing a material change in circumstances supporting modification; on remand the district court found: Mother continued therapy; supervised curbside/vehicle contacts and supervised holiday visits occurred without incident; Child was older and had substantial therapy; original supervision/therapy providers were unavailable and supervised services were unaffordable.
- The district court concluded the 2010 conditions were unenforceable and that unsupervised parent-time better served Child’s best interest by fostering a continuing relationship, given successful supervised/unsupervised visits and lack of evidentiary support for Father’s alienation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unenforceability of the 2010 conditions constituted a material change in circumstances supporting modification of parent-time | Father: Court abused discretion by treating Mother’s noncompliance/unenforceability as a material change; this rewards noncompliance | Mother/Court: Changed facts (therapy, successful supervised contacts, Child’s maturity, unavailable/expensive services) showed changed circumstances and made the 2010 order unenforceable | Court: Father barred by mandate rule from relitigating inadequately briefed issue from prior appeal; remand findings adequately show changed circumstances supporting modification |
| Whether the court failed to perform a best-interest analysis when modifying parent-time | Father: Court did not appropriately consider Child’s best interests before eliminating supervised parent-time | Mother/Court: Court considered Child’s welfare, prior successful supervised visits, Child’s need for meaningful contact, and found unsupervised visits would better foster relationship | Court: District court conducted the required two-step inquiry and reasonably found unsupervised parent-time served Child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Jones, 374 P.3d 45 (Utah Ct. App.) (district court parent-time determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Stephens v. Stephens, 437 P.3d 445 (Utah Ct. App.) (two-step modification procedure: changed circumstances then de novo best-interest analysis)
- Erickson v. Erickson, 437 P.3d 370 (Utah Ct. App.) (lower showing required to modify parent-time than custody)
- Becker v. Becker, 694 P.2d 608 (Utah 1984) (modification of visitation requires bifurcated procedure)
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (two-step procedure for visitation changes)
- Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942 (Utah Ct. App.) (welfare of child governs parent-time decisions)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 223 P.3d 456 (Utah Ct. App.) (fostering relationship with noncustodial parent promotes child’s best interests)
- Shuman v. Shuman, 406 P.3d 258 (Utah Ct. App.) (findings on remand must disclose steps leading to conclusions)
- Lay v. Lay, 427 P.3d 1221 (Utah Ct. App.) (findings must be detailed enough for appellate review)