Twitchell v. Twitchell
509 P.3d 806
Utah Ct. App.2022Background:
- Joseph and Jazmin Twitchell married in 2016, share one child born May 2017, and separated about a year after birth; Jazmin was primary caretaker after separation.
- Temporary orders awarded joint legal custody and designated Jazmin primary physical custodian; Joseph was granted alternating weekends and an additional Thursday overnight.
- At trial Joseph testified to incidents of physical abuse by Jazmin and presented photos; witnesses testified Child showed signs of neglect (severe diaper rash, dehydration, bite marks) after being in Jazmin’s care.
- Jazmin worked as a houseparent (room and board in-kind benefit) and as a substitute teacher; her reported income at trial was inconsistent and the value of in-kind housing was disputed.
- The district court awarded Jazmin primary physical custody, ordered Joseph parent-time (Thursday overnight and alternating weekends; altered schedule when Child starts kindergarten), and set child support based on findings that Jazmin earned $1,760/month and Joseph $5,011/month (Joseph ordered to pay $582/month).
- Joseph appealed, arguing the court (1) failed to adequately consider/resolve evidence of abuse, neglect, and moral-character factors, (2) awarded parent-time that departs from the statutory minimum without adequate findings, and (3) miscalculated Jazmin’s income for child support without adequate explanation.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joseph) | Defendant's Argument (Jazmin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court adequately considered evidence of domestic violence, neglect, and moral character when making custody decision | Court failed to evaluate evidence of Jazmin’s alleged abuse of Joseph, neglect/injuries to Child, and questions about Jazmin’s credibility/moral character | Court implicitly relied on evidence favoring Jazmin and found her a stable, fit primary custodian | Court vacated custody order and remanded for supplemented findings addressing the abuse/neglect and moral-character evidence and how those facts affect Child’s best interests |
| Whether parent-time order unlawfully departs from statutory minimum without explanation | The post-kindergarten schedule requires Child returned earlier than statutory minimum, effectively giving Joseph less than the minimum parent-time without stated reasons | Court adopted a different schedule (including extra summer time) and did not explain departure in findings | Remanded: court must either adopt statutory minimum schedule or provide adequate factual findings explaining and justifying any departure |
| Whether the district court erred in calculating Jazmin’s income for child support | Court’s child-support finding (Jazmin ~$1,760/mo; substitute teaching ~$780/mo) is unsupported and unexplained given conflicting evidence and testimony | Court adopted specific monthly figures (including an in-kind housing valuation) to calculate support | Remanded for the court to resolve testimonial/documentary conflicts about Jazmin’s earnings and in-kind compensation and to enter adequate findings explaining the income calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- T.W. v. S.A., 504 P.3d 163 (2021 UT App 132) (discusses breadth of trial court discretion in custody and requirement for adequate findings)
- Pingree v. Pingree, 365 P.3d 713 (2015 UT App 302) (best-interest focus in custody determinations)
- Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (courts must provide subsidiary facts linking findings to best-interest conclusions)
- Shuman v. Shuman, 406 P.3d 258 (2017 UT App 192) (trial court may make credibility determinations without extensive detail if reasoning is otherwise apparent)
- Lay v. Lay, 427 P.3d 1221 (2018 UT App 137) (findings must disclose steps by which ultimate factual conclusions were reached)
- Barnes v. Barnes, 857 P.2d 257 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (insufficient findings where court omitted disputed evidence relevant to custody)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 959 P.2d 1015 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (child support should be calculated based on earnings at time of trial but court has discretion in method)
- Barrani v. Barrani, 334 P.3d 994 (2014 UT App 204) (child support obligations computed from each parent’s adjusted gross income)