Hinds v. Hinds-Holm, 505 P.3d 1136

Parents married in 2015, had a son in 2016, later divorced; conflict arose while Father was stationed in New Mexico and Mother moved back to Utah with the child.
Father alleged a 2017 domestic-violence incident listing Mother as perpetrator; military investigation did not place the incident in its database for physical maltreatment.
During the divorce, Mother repeatedly failed to comply with court orders (parent-time, discovery, and a court-ordered custody evaluation); several of her attorneys withdrew citing her conduct.
A licensed clinical social worker (Evaluator) conducted a custody evaluation and recommended Father receive sole legal and physical custody, with Mother parent-time.
At trial (Mother appeared pro se after firing counsel and a denied same-day motion to continue), the court independently weighed Utah Code section 30-3-10(2) factors, found most significant factors favored Father (domestic violence, developmental needs, parental capacity, interference/manipulation of child), and awarded Father sole legal and physical custody; Mother was granted statutory parent-time.
Mother’s post-trial motions (rule 52 and rule 59) were denied; she appealed custody, the denial of the continuance, and sought reversal or new trial; Father asked for appellate fees, which the court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Custody award—did court misapply custody factors / abuse discretion?	Mother: Court improperly weighed statutory factors and misapplied Utah law; alternative evidence showed different weighting.	Father: Trial court performed independent factor analysis, had evidentiary support, and appropriately exercised discretion.	Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; findings supported awarding Father sole legal and physical custody.
Denial of same-day motion to continue trial—denial violated Mother’s right to a fair trial?	Mother: Denial prevented her from having counsel and thereby denied a fair trial.	Father: Continuance would have been prejudicial, Mother caused the need by dismissing counsel, and Mother was prepared to proceed.	Affirmed. Denial was reasonable under continuance factors; no material prejudice shown.
Appellate attorney fees—should Father recover fees incurred on appeal?	Father: Prevailing party on appeal should receive fees.	Mother: (Responding) Fees awarded below related to separate orders, not this appeal.	Denied. Fees below concerned different orders-to-show-cause; Father is not entitled to appellate fees here.

Nebeker v. Orton, 438 P.3d 1053 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding in custody appeals)
Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (trial court discretion in weighing custody factors and necessity to act in child’s best interest)
Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (trial court must state findings linking evidence to child’s best interest; deference when choosing between good parents)
K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 414 P.3d 933 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (requirement that district court link factual findings to best-interest custody determination)
Layton City v. Longcrier, 943 P.2d 655 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (five-factor test for evaluating reasonableness of denying a continuance)
Vaughan v. Romander, 360 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)