K.P.S. v. E.J.P.
414 P.3d 933
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Parents divorced after a short marriage; Mother moved to Idaho with the child in 2003, Father remained in Utah; a bifurcated decree left custody issues unresolved.
- Child has a history of severe depression and self-harm, including at least one suicide attempt; Father sought and facilitated mental-health treatment and a suicide-prevention plan, while Mother minimized some incidents and at times refused recommended emergency care or prescribed medication.
- A court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) investigated and recommended primary physical custody to Father, citing Mother’s pattern of minimizing Child’s mental-health needs and Father’s proactive responses and bond with Child.
- At trial the district court awarded Mother sole physical custody, chastised both parents for aspects of their conduct, ordered Mother to comply with Therapist’s recommendations, and limited Father to minimum statutory parent-time; the court rejected the GAL’s recommendation largely because Child was 13 and the court would not give weight to her preference.
- Father moved to reconsider and appealed, arguing (1) the district court’s findings were legally insufficient and failed to explain departure from the GAL’s recommendation, and (2) the court failed to rule on several issues certified for trial (child support, medical arrears, attorney fees, custody-evaluator fee allocation).
- The appellate court vacated the custody award and remanded for supplemented findings and reconsideration, and remanded for rulings on the unresolved certified issues.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court made sufficient findings of fact to support awarding Mother sole physical custody and to explain its rejection of the GAL recommendation | District court failed to provide subsidiary facts linking evidence to best-interest conclusion and did not articulate legitimate reasons for rejecting GAL’s detailed, fact-supported recommendation | Court argued GAL relied improperly on Child’s preference (Child is 13) and raised concerns about Father’s temperament, supervised parent-time history, and insufficient exercised parent-time | Vacated custody award; court must supplement findings with subsidiary facts showing how evidence supports best-interest decision and explain reasons for departing from GAL recommendation |
| Whether district court erred by failing to rule on all issues certified for trial (child support, medical arrears, attorney fees, custody evaluator fees) | Court omitted rulings on material, trial-preserved issues despite evidence being presented; Father alerted trial court post-judgment and sought correction | Mother argued invited-error doctrine barred review (court disagreed) | Remanded for the district court to make findings and rulings on all material issues certified for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartlett v. Bartlett, 342 P.3d 296 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (insufficient subsidiary facts to support custody award requires vacatur and remand for supplemented findings)
- Vandermeide v. Young, 296 P.3d 787 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (trial court must find on all material issues raised by pleadings; failure to do so is reversible error)
- R.B. v. L.B., 339 P.3d 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (district court expected to articulate reasons when rejecting custody evaluator/GAL recommendations)
- Tuckey v. Tuckey, 649 P.2d 88 (Utah 1982) (court should state reasons if disregarding department evaluation)
- Larson v. Larson, 888 P.3d 719 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (child’s custody preference is not controlling and must be weighed by age and maturity)