Woodward v. LaFranca
2013 UT App 147
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Father petitioned to modify custody; divorce decree (Feb 15, 2008) awarded Mother sole physical custody with Father having parenting time.
- From 2008 to 2010, Mother's repeated unfounded abuse allegations against Father led to forensic interviews and DCFS/Army investigations.
- July 28, 2010 Father filed Petition to Modify Decree; November 8, 2010 Commissioner temporarily granted custody to Father and appointed a Special Master and an Evaluator.
- November–December 2011 four‑day hearing; Evaluator recommended Father be granted sole legal and physical custody; Therapist and Special Master expressed concerns about Mother.
- Trial court rejected the Commissioner’s recommendations, credited Mother’s credibility, and denied Father’s petition to modify custody.
- On appeal, Father argues error in credibility determinations and best‑interests analysis; court reverses and remands for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility credibility of experts | Woodward contends trial court lacked reasonable basis to reject Evaluator/Therapist/Master. | Franca maintains credibility determinations were within the court's discretion. | Court reversed for improper rejection of Evaluator’s testimony; remand. |
| Best interests analysis standard | Father argues court focused on Mother’s abilities rather than comparative best interests. | Mother argues best interests weighed appropriately under Utah statutes. | Remand to properly weigh factors and consider relative parental abilities. |
| Interference with visitation | Interference evidence should inform best‑interests, not be limited to material‑change analysis. | Court treated interference under material‑change framework where not required. | Interference must be weighed in best‑interests context; remand to evaluate accordingly. |
| Use of expert testimony in weighing factors | Evaluator’s conclusions should inform factors; trial court erred by discounting based on minor inconsistencies. | Credibility issues permissible; court may discount expert testimony. | Court erred in disregarding Evaluator; reweigh and consider corroborating evidence on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (custody findings require reasonable basis for credibility decisions)
- Reed v. Reed, 806 P.2d 1182 (Utah 1991) (trial court credibility decisions reviewed for reasonable basis)
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (stability and best interests in custody determinations)
- Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599 (Utah 1989) (overall best interests objective in custody modification)
- Taylor v. Elison, 2011 UT App 272 (Utah App. 2011) (best interests require analyzing multiple factors and not assuming status quo)