Zavala v. Zavala
2016 UT App 6
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents divorced in 2011 with a stipulated joint legal and physical custody decree giving nearly equal overnight time (182/183 nights) and ordering Father to pay $149/month child support.
- Mother later filed to modify parent time alleging the child needed routine and stability; Father counter-petitioned for sole custody alleging Mother’s relocations were harmful.
- The court appointed evaluator Dr. Todd Dunn; Mother retained Dr. Matthew Davies; a five-day trial followed with both experts testifying.
- The district court found a material and substantial change in circumstances (including Mother’s relocations and travel distance to the child’s school, Father’s reliance on surrogate care, phone cutoffs, and other conduct) and modified the school-year schedule from a 7/7 to a 9/5 split favoring Mother.
- Child support was increased to $354/month based on the new schedule and Father’s higher income; the court ordered Father to pay the court-appointed evaluator’s fees and Mother to pay her retained expert’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by modifying custody without finding a material and substantial change | Father: court failed to find material and substantial change since decree | Mother: parties’ stipulation and petitions waived or relaxed threshold; modification justified | Court: statute requires finding, but standard is relaxed for stipulated awards; Father invited error by alleging changed circumstances, so finding stands |
| Whether court erred by considering pre-decree events | Father: court plainly erred by considering events before the decree | Mother: pre-decree conduct is relevant to change-of-circumstances and best-interest analyses | Court: statute and precedent permit consideration of pre-decree conduct; no plain error |
| Whether findings support custody modification | Father: findings do not justify 9/5 schedule | Mother: record supports findings favoring Mother’s primary-care role and logistics | Court: ample, non-erroneous findings support modification; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether court improperly rejected court-appointed evaluator and assigned his fees to Father | Father: court wrongly rejected Dr. Dunn and unfairly required Father to pay Dunn’s fees | Mother: court articulated reasons to reject Dunn and equitably allocated evaluator costs given incomes | Court: district court gave articulated, non-erroneous reasons for rejecting Dunn and validly exercised discretion in fee allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599 (Utah 1989) (unadjudicated stipulated custody decrees warrant a relaxed changed-circumstances standard)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 258 P.3d 553 (Utah 2011) (changed-circumstances requirement cannot be supplanted by best-interest showing)
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (party seeking modification must show changes since previous decree that are material and substantial)
- Woodward v. LaFranca, 305 P.3d 181 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (discussed in relation to modification standards for stipulated decrees)
- Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38 (Utah 1982) (lists factors a court may consider in best-interest custody inquiries)