John v. John
536 P.3d 1138
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- Lucas and Cassandra John married in 2014; their daughter (Child) was born the same year. Cassandra had a history of substance abuse; the parties’ second child was born with substances in her system and subsequently died.
- Beginning in 2016, after an incident in which Cassandra allegedly attempted to drive off with Child, temporary protective and custody orders were entered; Cassandra tested positive for cocaine and marijuana in hair/follow-up tests.
- The court previously imposed supervised, no-overnight parent-time for Cassandra and repeatedly required drug testing; Cassandra later moved out of state and had only three in-person contacts with Child from 2017–2021.
- In a 2021 bench trial the court found Cassandra was making some improvements but remained immature, possibly emotionally unstable, had a history of violence and drug abuse, and awarded Lucas sole legal and physical custody.
- The court ordered supervised in-person parent-time (with a therapist-directed ramp-up) and unsupervised virtual parent-time once weekly, required clean drug tests and reunification therapy to progress toward unsupervised in-person visits. Cassandra appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Cassandra's Argument | Lucas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court made the statutory finding required by Utah Code § 30-3-34.5(1) that Child would be subject to physical or emotional harm from unsupervised parent-time | Court failed to find a present risk of harm sufficient to justify supervised visits | Court’s written and oral findings (noncompliance with orders, failed/positive drug tests, past violence, limited contact, immaturity) show Cassandra "potentially could still be a danger," satisfying the statute | Affirmed — the court’s oral statements, read with its written findings, adequately find an existing risk of harm to support supervised parent-time |
| Whether the court provided the specific goals/expectations required by Utah Code § 30-3-34.5(5) before lifting supervision | Court was silent or failed to set specific, non-delegable criteria (and improperly delegated criteria to a therapist) | Court specified goals: obtain therapist within three weeks, complete reunification therapy per therapist, provide clean drug tests; further detail could follow after therapist reports; delegation/other objections were not preserved | Affirmed — court provided specific goals; arguments that additional detail or non-delegation was required were either mistaken or unpreserved |
| Whether supervised parent-time was the least-restrictive means of protection | Supervision is overly restrictive absent a present risk | The least-restrictive argument simply re-frames the contention that no present risk exists and Cassandra offered no plausible less-restrictive alternative | Repackaged claim rejected as unavailing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lay v. Lay, 427 P.3d 1221 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review: statutory interpretation de novo; parent-time decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (written findings may be elaborated by oral findings when written findings are incomplete)
- Bill Nay & Sons Excavating v. Neeley Constr. Co., 677 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1984) (trial court’s oral explanation can clarify incomplete written findings)
- Cox v. Cox, 532 P.3d 128 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (distinguishes adequacy of findings from sufficiency of evidence)
- Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (findings that omit statutory prerequisites can be inadequate)
- State v. Cruz, 122 P.3d 543 (Utah 2005) (preservation rule: objections must be raised to a level a court can consider)