Vaughan v. Romander, 360 P.3d 761

Background

Parents (Father: David Vaughan; Mother: Emily Romander) disputed custody of their young child; Father petitioned for custody, support, and related relief.
Temporary orders initially gave Mother primary physical custody; a custody evaluator (Evaluator) conducted an evaluation from 2012–2018 and provided a final updated report 14 days before trial.
The Evaluator’s final report recommended awarding primary physical custody to Father and scheduling Mother’s parent-time as alternating weekends plus an alternating weekday overnight to minimize gaps.
On the morning of trial Mother moved to continue, arguing she lacked time to respond to the Evaluator’s report; the trial court denied the continuance because the report was submitted within the parties’ stipulated 14-day window.
After trial the court awarded Father primary physical custody, gave Mother more than the statutory minimum parent-time (alternating weekends plus a Tuesday overnight), and limited the right of first refusal to overnight or absences over 24 hours.
Mother appealed the denial of the continuance, the custody award, the parent-time schedule, and the limited right of first refusal; the appellate court affirmed except for a dissent on remand necessity for parent-time findings.

Issues and Key Cases Cited

Issue	Romander's Argument	Vaughan's Argument	Held
Motion to continue when evaluator’s final report was provided 14 days before trial	Trial court abused discretion by denying continuance because 14 days was insufficient to respond	Parties stipulated to 14‑day timing; evaluator timely delivered report per stipulation; denial not abuse	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Mother bound by stipulation
Award of primary physical custody to Father	Trial court’s factual findings (mother’s past engagement, financial stability, home conditions, interference with father’s time) lack evidentiary support / clearly erroneous	Findings are supported by evaluator’s testimony and other evidence; appellant failed to show clear error	Affirmed — findings not clearly erroneous; custody award not an abuse of discretion
Parent‑time schedule (weekday overnight choice)	Trial court erred by rejecting evaluator’s alternating‑weekday recommendation without explaining reasons; potential harm from up to seven‑day separations	Trial court reasonably chose a fixed weeknight for predictability; deviation is minor and within discretion	Majority: Affirmed (no remand); Dissent: Remand for articulated findings explaining departure from evaluator
Right of first refusal limited to overnight/ >24‑hour absences	Limitation effectively eliminates mother’s ability to provide care; statute presumes parental care preferable	Statute only encourages parental care; court may limit or decline ROFR; evaluator found travel/work made day‑to‑day ROFR impractical	Affirmed — limitation reasonable and supported by evaluator’s testimony; within court’s discretion

Key Cases Cited

Clarke v. Clarke, 292 P.3d 76 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (standards for reviewing continuance denials)
Cagatay v. Erturk, 302 P.3d 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (custody award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 733 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (standard for clear‑error review of factual findings)
Tobler v. Tobler, 337 P.3d 296 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial court discretion in parent‑time decisions)
Marchand v. Marchand, 147 P.3d 538 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (broad discretion in custody matters; reversal only for flagrant injustice)
R.B. v. L.B., 339 P.3d 137 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial court should articulate reasons when rejecting evaluator recommendations)
Tuckey v. Tuckey, 649 P.2d 88 (Utah 1982) (remand required where court fails to state reason for rejecting social worker’s custody report)
Wight v. Wight, 268 P.3d 861 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (statute encouraging parental care does not create a mandatory right to provide day care)
Redd v. Hill, 304 P.3d 861 (Utah 2013) (standards and caution for awarding attorney fees on appeal for frivolous appeals)