Martinez v. Sanchez-Garcia, 532 P.3d 105

Martinez and Sanchez-Garcia divorced in 2017: stipulated joint legal and joint physical custody, with Martinez as primary physical custodian residing in Cache County.
Martinez later sought relocation to Colorado (petition to modify); a commissioner and a custody evaluator recommended denying a Colorado relocation and recommended custody shift to Sanchez-Garcia only if she relocated out of the area; Martinez withdrew the Colorado move.
Martinez moved the children to Layton (≈60 miles away) without advance notice to Sanchez-Garcia; he amended his counter-petition seeking primary physical custody in Cache County.
At bench trial the court relied on the custody evaluator and parents’ extended-family ties in Cache County, found communication problems (Martinez’s failure to notify), and awarded Sanchez-Garcia primary physical custody so long as Martinez remained in Layton.
The district court made no oral or written finding that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred and did not analyze many statutory custody factors, notably the primary-caregiver/continuity factor.
The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the court must first find a substantial and material change and, if found, must consider the statutory factors (including primary caregiver) in a present-tense analysis.

Issue	Martinez's Argument	Sanchez-Garcia's Argument	Held
Whether the district court made the required written finding that a substantial and material change in circumstances occurred to permit custody modification	No — the court failed to make any written or oral finding on changed circumstances; this is a statutory threshold	The change (Martinez’s move to Layton, school change, reduced proximity to extended family) was obvious from the record and thus the omission is harmless; Martinez invited the issue by earlier seeking modification for a Colorado move	Held for Martinez: court erred by not making findings on substantial and material change; omission is reversible because the change was not clearly uncontroverted or obviously sufficient
Whether the district court adequately considered required statutory custody factors, including Martinez’s status as primary caregiver	The court failed to consider many statutory factors and omitted discussion of the primary-caregiver/continuity factor despite evidence it was central	The court sufficiently relied on evaluator and extended-family ties to justify change	Held for Martinez: court’s custody analysis was inadequate; on remand the court must consider the enumerated statutory factors (give substantial weight to existing joint custody where child thriving), including primary caregiver and continuity

Peeples v. Peeples, 456 P.3d 1159 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (modification requires written findings that a material and substantial change occurred and that modification would improve the child’s best interests)
Diener v. Diener, 98 P.3d 1178 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (trial courts must make findings on material issues; failure is reversible absent clear, uncontroverted record)
Larson v. Larson, 888 P.2d 719 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (continuity of placement is a significant factor; change in circumstances is a threshold requirement)
Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (when child is thriving, continuity of placement is critically important)
Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647 (Utah 1988) (primary caregiver factor commands considerable weight in custody disputes)
Twitchell v. Twitchell, 509 P.3d 806 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (appellate standard for custody review; courts weigh statutory factors and determine relative importance)
Erickson v. Erickson, 437 P.3d 370 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (minor scheduling changes without change in number of overnights may not constitute material and substantial change)
Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38 (Utah 1982) (written findings are required for custody orders to allow meaningful appellate review)