Day v. Barnes
2018 UT App 143
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Child born 2010 to Day (mother) and Barnes (father); custody has been contested throughout Child’s life.
- April 2013: parties stipulated Barnes (in Utah) would have temporary custody while Day lived in Massachusetts; Utah court later assumed jurisdiction and kept that structure, providing for shared custody if Day relocated to Utah.
- Parties later stipulated that if Day moved back to Utah she would be primary caregiver with final decision-making authority under joint custody.
- July 2015 Day moved to Utah, then in Sept. 2015 notified intent to relocate back to Massachusetts; Barnes opposed and Day filed a motion to relocate.
- Commissioner recommended denial of relocation after proffer; Day objected, district court held an evidentiary hearing, affirmed denial, and stated objecting party bears burden to show commissioner was incorrect; court also stated custody arrangements that would apply depending on Day’s residence.
- Day appealed arguing the district court misapplied Utah R. Civ. P. 108 (among other claims); Barnes cross-appealed arguing the order created an automatic future modification upon relocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Day) | Defendant's Argument (Barnes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 108 places burden on objecting party to prove commissioner’s recommendation is incorrect | Rule 108 does not place such burden; district court erred in requiring Day to prove commissioner wrong | District court applied Rule 108 correctly by requiring specificity in objections | Court held district court misapplied Rule 108; objecting party has no burden of persuasion—trial judge must make independent findings and conclusions based on the evidence |
| Whether district court should consider co-parenting difficulties and new relationship evidence in relocation analysis | Court should consider co-parenting problems and Day’s changed circumstances (relationship) in best-interest analysis | Such evidence did not render commissioner’s recommendation erroneous | Court did not resolve on merits; remanded for independent review without erroneous burden, so this issue not decided on appeal |
| Whether findings were legally sufficient / abuse of discretion in denying relocation | Court’s findings insufficient because premised on wrong legal standard | Court believed findings supported denial | Court vacated order and remanded to allow proper independent findings; did not reach substantive sufficiency/abuse-of-discretion evaluation |
| Whether order created an automatic future modification of custody upon Day’s relocation | N/A (Day appealed) | Order improperly ratifies an automatic modification tied to Day’s choice of residence | Court held order did not create an impermissible automatic modification; it addressed then-existing best interests tied to current residence and anticipated possible residences |
Key Cases Cited
- Strand v. Nupetco Assocs. LLC, 397 P.3d 724 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (rules interpreted by plain language)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (courts bound by text of rule)
- Gardiner v. Taufer, 342 P.3d 269 (Utah 2014) (read rule as whole; harmonize provisions)
- Grindstaff v. Grindstaff, 241 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Kielkowski v. Kielkowski, 346 P.3d 690 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (legal conclusions in custody context reviewed for correctness)
- Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599 (Utah 1989) (child’s best interests are paramount)
- Pingree v. Pingree, 365 P.3d 713 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (relocation may warrant custody change if parent insists on moving)
- State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (appellate courts may address issues likely to arise on remand)