Risher v. Emerson
2017 UT App 216
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child born Dec. 2013 to Michael W. Risher III and Amy M. Emerson; parents never married.
- Risher filed a petition for parentage in Feb. 2015 after informal arrangements and later disputes.
- Parties stipulated to many issues, but custody/visitation remained contested; a one-day trial occurred in Mar. 2016.
- Trial court announced intended rulings, signed a document titled “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” and an order of parentage (awarding sole physical custody to Emerson, final decision-making to Emerson, a reduced visitation schedule for Risher, and limits on first-refusal opportunities).
- The signed findings contained no factual findings or articulated reasoning; Risher appealed challenging custody, decision-making authority, visitation reduction, and first-refusal limitations.
- Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide adequate findings and analysis necessary for meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Risher) | Defendant's Argument (Emerson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding sole physical custody to Emerson was in the child’s best interests | Award of sole custody is not in Child’s best interests; trial court gave no factual basis | Trial court’s custody determination was appropriate (trial court’s adoption) | Reversed and remanded for adequate findings and analysis |
| Whether Emerson should have final decision-making authority on disputed matters | Risher argues the court improperly gave Emerson final say without articulated reasons | Emerson’s position: final authority appropriate given facts (as adopted by court) | Reversed and remanded for factual findings showing consideration of statutory factors |
| Whether the court lawfully reduced Risher’s parent time compared to pretrial orders | Risher contends reduction was unsupported and not shown to be in child’s best interest | Emerson (and court) favored the adopted visitation plan | Reversed and remanded for findings explaining why reduced parent time serves child’s best interest |
| Whether limiting first-refusal to 12 times/year with seven-day notice was appropriate | Risher says restriction is arbitrary and unsupported | Emerson (and court) sought to limit first-refusal for stated practical reasons | Reversed and remanded because trial court did not articulate facts or reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Grindstaff v. Grindstaff, 241 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (custody review is abuse-of-discretion but requires adequate findings)
- Keyes v. Keyes, 351 P.3d 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (findings enable meaningful appellate review; must show steps by which court reached conclusions)
- Taft v. Taft, 379 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (insufficient findings require reversal and remand)
- Allen v. Allen, 319 P.3d 770 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (custody factors must be articulable and set out in written findings)
- Boyer Co. v. Lignell, 567 P.2d 1112 (Utah 1977) (trial court should not mechanically adopt findings prepared by prevailing counsel)