T.W. v. S.A., 2021 UT App 132

Parents separated before the child's birth; Father later moved to Grantsville (~50 miles from Mother in Sandy) and requested a custody evaluation.
While Child was pre-school age the parents stipulated to joint custody with alternating-week physical custody; that schedule became impracticable once Child began kindergarten due to the long commute.
An updated custody evaluation recommended Father as primary physical custodian based on his more stable housing and the presence of half-/step-siblings in his household.
Child was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and had social, behavioral, and school-attendance issues that both parents and therapists addressed at trial.
The district court found Child’s psychological and emotional needs favored minimizing disruption (including changing schools), credited Mother’s testimony about routines and flexibility, awarded Mother primary physical custody, and adopted the statute’s minimum parent-time schedule (with one mid-week overnight) rather than the optional increased schedule in Utah Code § 30-3-35.1.
Father appealed, arguing the court inadequately explained rejecting the evaluator’s recommendation and failed to make required findings when declining the increased parent-time schedule; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Father's Argument	Mother's Argument	Held
Whether the court gave adequate reasons for rejecting the custody evaluator’s recommendation that Father receive primary physical custody	Court failed to articulate sufficient reasons and relied on an erroneous factual basis (the Adjustment Disorder)	Court provided reasons: Child’s adjustment disorder, progress at current school, Mother’s credible testimony about routines and flexibility, and limited weight on sibling factor	Affirmed: court sufficiently linked evidence to best-interest conclusion and articulated reasons for rejecting the evaluator
Whether the court erred by not adopting the increased parent-time schedule under Utah Code § 30-3-35.1 and failing to make findings explaining that rejection	Court should have made specific findings addressing why the increased schedule (additional Sunday overnight) was not in Child’s best interest	Court explained its chosen schedule, invoked § 30-3-35 as minimum, gave reasons for adding a single mid-week overnight to maximize Father’s time while minimizing commute burdens	Affirmed: court has discretion; it entered adequate reasons for its customized schedule and was not required to reject every statutory alternative explicitly

Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647 (Utah 1988) (broad trial-court custody discretion and requirement for findings)
Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (courts must set forth reasons when choosing between similarly qualified parents)
Lay v. Lay, 427 P.3d 1221 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) ( § 30-3-35.1 adoption is permissive; court retains discretion)
LeFevre v. Mackelprang, 440 P.3d 874 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (standard of review for parent-time and § 30-3-35.1 prerequisites)
R.B. v. L.B., 339 P.3d 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (court expected to articulate reasons when rejecting evaluator recommendations)
K.P.S. v. E.J.P., 414 P.3d 933 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (findings must disclose steps linking evidence to conclusions)
Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (custody factors are not of equal weight)
Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (custody often requires choosing between good and better)