Brown v. Babbitt, 2015 UT App 161

Background

Parties: Kelsey Brown (mother/appellee) and Anthony Babbitt (father/appellant) dispute custody and parent-time of their child following divorce decree.
Procedural posture: Babbitt appealed the decree of divorce’s custody and parent-time orders; his notice of appeal named other orders but was timely filed.
Trial court awarded primary physical custody to Brown and limited/supervised parent-time for Babbitt, citing lack of parent-child bond, past contempt, alleged kidnapping intent, long absence, and other concerns.
Babbitt challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence supporting factual findings, (2) adequacy of findings required to depart from the statutory minimum parent-time schedule, and (3) denial of certain evidence at a post-trial motion (raised as due-process/open-courts claims).
The appellate court reviewed factual findings for clear error, reviewed legal sufficiency de novo, and treated the imperfect notice of appeal as sufficient because intent was clear and appellee suffered no prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (Babbitt)	Held
Sufficiency of notice of appeal	Notice was adequate or any defect not jurisdictional; appellee not prejudiced	Notice failed to identify decree of divorce, so appeal should be dismissed	Timely notice controls; liberally construed—appeal treated as from decree because intent clear and no prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence for custody/parent-time findings	Trial court’s credibility assessments and findings supported by record and entitled to deference	Trial court relied on outdated custody evaluation over live testimony; findings unsupported	Appellate court defers to factfinder; Babbitt failed to show findings were clearly erroneous; findings stand
Required findings to depart from statutory parent-time minimum (Utah Code §30‑3‑32 / §30‑3‑34)	Trial court made adequate findings showing lack of bond and other risk factors to limit/supervise parent-time	Trial court failed to make required finding of "real harm or substantiated potential harm" before limiting parent-time	No requirement to state "real harm" here; §30‑3‑34 allows departure based on relevant factors and court made adequate findings supporting limitation
Procedural/due process challenge re: excluded post-trial evidence	Exclusion did not affect decree; plaintiff not prejudiced	Denial of ability to present evidence at Rule 52(b) hearing violated due process and open-courts clause	Moot: Babbitt later presented evidence in modification proceeding; trial court found it irrelevant to the decree; appellate court need not decide constitutional claim

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Central Utah Counseling Ctr., 147 P.3d 390 (2006 UT) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional; other defects are discretionary)
Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 199 P.3d 957 (2008 UT) (liberal construction of notice of appeal where intent is clear and appellee not prejudiced)
Speros v. Fricke, 98 P.3d 28 (2004 UT) (notice deficiencies excused where intent to appeal specific order is clear)
In re B.B., 94 P.3d 252 (2004 UT) (notice need not be a model of clarity if it adequately notifies parties)
Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 733 (2009 UT App) (standard of review: factual findings reversed only for clear error; legal sufficiency reviewed for correction of error)
DeBry v. Cascade Enters., 879 P.2d 1353 (1994 UT) (appellate briefs must not evade page limits by dumping critical facts into appendices)
Child v. Child, 194 P.3d 205 (2008 UT App) (credibility and weight of evidence are matters for the factfinder)
Warner v. Warner, 319 P.3d 711 (2014 UT App) (attempts to marshal evidence in addenda insufficient to challenge findings)
Peterson v. Peterson, 818 P.2d 1305 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (trial court has broad discretion to restrict visitation if supported by findings)
Ellis v. Swensen, 16 P.3d 1233 (2000 UT) (mootness doctrine: case moot when relief cannot affect litigants’ rights)