R.B. v. L.B.
339 P.3d 137
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents (Mother L.B. and Father R.B.) stipulated in their 2009 divorce decree that Mother would have physical custody until the child began 7th grade, at which point a court-ordered evaluator would assess whether transferring custody to Father was in the child’s best interest; the decree described a "legal presumption" favoring transfer unless the evaluator determined otherwise.
- The follow-up evaluation was scheduled for 2012. Mother filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in 2012 challenging enforcement of the custody-transfer provisions as contrary to public policy (arguing the provision created an automatic transfer).
- The district court concluded the stipulation did not create an automatic/self-executing transfer and retained authority to decide the child’s best interest; it ordered the evaluator (Dr. Walker) to perform the follow-up and held an evidentiary hearing.
- Dr. Walker recommended transfer to Father; the district court disagreed after weighing additional evidence (school reports, testimony) and left custody with Mother, issuing findings explaining its reasons.
- Father appealed, challenging (inter alia) the court’s interpretation of the stipulation, its authority to revisit the custody provision, its rejection of the evaluator’s recommendation, adequacy and sufficiency of findings, admission of undisclosed witnesses, timeliness of Mother’s Rule 60(b) motion, and denial of restitution of consideration.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the district court retained statutory authority to determine the child’s best interest, adequately explained its departure from the evaluator’s recommendation, and rejected Father’s other challenges as unpreserved or insufficiently supported on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of custody-stipulation / public policy | The stipulation should bind the parties to the evaluator’s determination and is enforceable; district court erred by not giving effect to it | The stipulation did not eliminate the court’s duty; court must ensure best interest | Court: did not hold stipulation void; even if ambiguous, district court must retain authority to make the best-interest determination and did not err to review it |
| Whether parties can contract away court’s best-interest review | Father: parties’ stipulation should restrict court from relitigating transfer | Mother: court’s statutory duty to consider best interest cannot be waived | Court: Parties cannot divest court of statutory duty; In re E.H. and Taylor support court’s supervisory role |
| Deference to custody evaluator’s recommendation | Father: district court insufficiently justified rejecting evaluator | Mother: court may weigh evaluator’s report against other evidence | Court: district court articulated reasons (follow-up vs full eval, contradictory testimony, child stability/academics) and permissibly declined to adopt evaluator’s recommendation |
| Sufficiency/adequacy of findings (weight gain, behavior, academics) | Father: findings unsupported; court should have blamed Mother for child’s weight and relied on evaluator’s testimony about parental issues | Mother: court focused on whether issues were being addressed and other evidence showing improvements; findings adequate | Court: Father waived some adequacy claims by not timely objecting; factual findings were supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Admission of undisclosed school witnesses | Father: court abused discretion by allowing principal and guidance counselor to testify despite nondisclosure | Mother: nondisclosure was harmless; affidavits were submitted and testimony not surprising | Court: trial court within discretion; Father failed to show prejudice or that outcome would differ |
| Timeliness of Mother’s Rule 60(b) motion | Father: motion was untimely (filed >2 years after decree) | Mother: motion timely because transfer was a future event and issues only triggered closer to 2012 | Court: district court did not rely on Rule 60(b) as sole basis; regardless, it had authority to conduct best-interest review and the procedural posture did not invalidate the hearing |
| Return of additional consideration Father paid for stipulation | Father: equities require refund because Mother effectively destroyed the stipulation | Mother: no legal basis to require refund | Court: Father inadequately briefed/unsupported; claim fails for lack of authority and argumentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ockey v. Lehmer, 189 P.3d 51 (Utah 2008) (contracts conflicting with public policy are void only if clearly against public policy)
- In re E.H., 137 P.3d 809 (Utah 2006) (court retains ultimate authority to ensure evaluator recommendations were properly arrived at and that best-interest process is adequate)
- Taylor v. Elison, 263 P.3d 448 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (court must analyze whether a custody change is in the children’s best interests even where decree language appears automatic)
- Woodward v. LaFranca, 305 P.3d 181 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (trial court must articulate reasons when rejecting evaluator recommendations)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 821 P.2d 472 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (appellate review of trial court factual findings limited to clear-error standard)