Wolferts v. Wolferts, 315 P.3d 448

Parties divorced; 2007 stipulation gave Mother primary custody of three daughters and Father parent-time. Father later sought sole custody; Mother sought modifications restricting Father’s parent-time.
GAL moved for contempt against both parents in 2009 for noncompliance with therapy and evaluation orders; commissioner recommended sanctions against Mother (striking pleadings/default) but stayed sanctions to allow purge opportunity.
Commissioner found Mother failed to purge contempt; after an evidentiary hearing the district court adopted the recommendation, finding Mother in contempt and entering default-related sanctions.
District court limited Mother’s participation at the best-interests custody hearing (permitting cross-examination but disallowing her witnesses/testimony beyond that), then transferred custody to Father based on expert testimony and findings that Mother coached the children and interfered with parent-child relationship.
Mother appealed, arguing plain error for lack of evidentiary hearing on contempt, that striking pleadings was an improper sanction, denial of due process/right to testify, and inadequate notice of purge conditions. Appellate court affirmed and awarded Father appellate fees, remanding amount determination to the district court.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother was punished for contempt without an evidentiary hearing	Commissioner denied right to confront witnesses and to testify; plain error	Mother failed to call witnesses or testify and did not object; commissioner hearings were proper	No plain error—Mother had opportunity to be heard, did not request witnesses/testify, and did not preserve the issue
Whether striking Mother’s pleadings as contempt sanction was improper	Custody-evaluation order is not discovery; contempt-only enforcement cannot include striking pleadings; or court failed to warn sanction	Issues not preserved below; court acted within discretion	Not reviewed on appeal—Mother failed to preserve the argument
Whether limiting Mother’s ability to testify/present evidence violated due process	Restricting testimony prevented constitutional right to present case at best-interests hearing	Mother waived/invited error; limitation was appropriate given default status and professionals’ evidence	Not considered—constitutional claim not preserved in district court
Whether Father should be awarded attorney fees on appeal	N/A (Father sought fees)	Father prevailed below and on appeal; entitled to reasonable appellate fees	Awarded fees on appeal; remanded to district court to determine amount

State v. Weaver, 122 P.3d 566 (Utah 2005) (preservation and plain error standard)
Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416 (Utah 2005) (contempt sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Larsen, 113 P.3d 998 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (elements for plain error review)
In re D.B., 289 P.3d 459 (Utah 2012) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
Leppert v. Leppert, 200 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (award of appellate fees to prevailing domestic-relations litigant)