480 P.3d 341
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- Ryan and Brenda divorced in 2014. The decree granted joint legal and physical custody but named Brenda the primary physical custodial parent; Ryan received parent-time per an optional schedule.
- Their parenting plan encouraged resolving disputes through experts/mediators and required mediation before seeking court resolution when joint decision-making failed.
- In May 2019 Ryan filed a petition to modify the decree seeking to be named the children’s primary custodial parent, alleging twelve changed circumstances (e.g., poor communication, medical/medication concerns, hygiene/screen-time issues, cohabitation concerns, increased stability and caregiving at Ryan’s home).
- Brenda moved to dismiss under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Ryan’s allegations could not meet the statutory material-and-substantial change threshold for a custody modification; she did not move on ADR noncompliance grounds.
- The district court dismissed the petition on two independent grounds: (1) for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (the court weighed and discounted many allegations), and (2) sua sponte for failure to engage in dispute-resolution procedures required by statute. Ryan appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the district court misapplied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard by reaching merits-based weighting of pleaded facts and erred by dismissing sua sponte for ADR noncompliance without notice or an opportunity to brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper | Ryan: court must accept pleaded facts and not weigh them; allegations suffice to plead material and substantial change | Brenda: pleadings fail as a matter of law to show the statutory material-and-substantial change required for custody modification | Court: dismissal improper — district court exceeded Rule 12(b)(6) by weighing allegations and discounting them on the merits; reversal. |
| Which standard applies: custody (higher) vs parent-time (lower) | Ryan: his petition sought only a parent-time adjustment, so a lesser showing applies | Brenda: petition seeks to make Ryan the primary custodial parent (a custody change), so the statutory material-and-substantial-change standard applies | Court: petition sought a change of primary custodial parent; the custody (material-and-substantial) standard applies. |
| Sua sponte dismissal for failure to use dispute-resolution procedures | Ryan: court raised ADR issue at hearing without notice; deprived him of chance to brief or pursue ADR | Brenda: (did not argue dismissal on ADR basis below) | Court: sua sponte dismissal was error because Ryan had no notice or opportunity to address the ADR issue; reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fehr v. Stockton, 427 P.3d 1190 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (Rule 12(b)(6) admits pleaded facts; review focuses on legal sufficiency of pleadings).
- Doyle v. Doyle, 258 P.3d 553 (Utah 2011) (change-in-circumstances is a threshold, fact-intensive legal determination; reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (two-part test for modification: changes since decree and those changes must be material and substantial).
- Peeples v. Peeples, 456 P.3d 1159 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (stipulated awards may require a lesser showing—the "low ebb" principle—but statutory threshold for custody still applies).
- O'Hearon v. Hansen, 409 P.3d 85 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal only when the complaint clearly demonstrates no entitlement to relief).