BLANK

Best Interest of the Child

Home Best Interest of the Child

How can we change the court system in order to make divorces easier on the children?

How can we change the court system in order to make divorces easier on the children? In my opinion: Institute a “loser pays the prevailing party’s attorney’s fees” rule. make divorce cases more litigant focused and tailored to meeting their needs…

Should we award custody to the parent who is a lower risk for COVID-19?

Should we award custody to the parent who is a lower risk for COVID-19? Is it reasonable to give custody to the parent who is a lower health risk to the child during the Chinese coronavirus pandemic? It is reasonable…

Can my ex use the panic over Coronavirus/COVID-19 to withhold the kids from me?

“Can my ex use the panic over Coronavirus/COVID-19 to withhold the kids from me?” “Will I still be free to pick my son up at the end of the week from his spring break visitation? With all the panic over…

Should all the kids stay with one parent after a divorce? Why or why not?

January 24, 2020

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Custody, Dirty Tricks, Divorce Preparedness, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Women's Divorce Issues

best interest, child custody, families, joint custody, primary custody, sole custody

I am a divorce and family lawyer. I have been for 23 years. It is impossible to come up with a blanket policy for all children of all parents in all families. For example, if a divorce were precipitated by…

2019 UT App 204 – In re H.F. incorrect analysis terminating parental rights

2019 UT App 204 – THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF H.F., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. J.F., Appellant, v. E.F., Appellee. Opinion No. 20180348-CA Filed December 12, 2019 Third District Juvenile…

2019 UT App 207 – Peeples v. Peeples – modification of child custody

January 7, 2020

Abuse, Best Interest of the Child, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Children in Divorce, Co-parenting, Contempt of Court, Coping With Divorce, Custody, Custody Evaluation, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Expert Witnesses, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, GAL (Guardian ad Litem), Joint Legal Custody, Mediation, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Child Custody, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Negotiation, Parenting Plan, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Protective Orders, Restraining Orders, Sole Custody, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

2019, 2019 UT App 207, best interest, bifurcate, bifurcated decree, children failed to demonstrate substantial change in the circumstances, clear error, custody evaluator, December 19, denied visitation, distinction between stipulated and adjudicated decrees, domestic relations commissioner, emotional, emotional abuse, failed to meet burden to prove change in circumstances, five out of every fourteen, guardian ad litem, in “high conflict” cases burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances is higher than normal, incorrect legal standard decree was stipulated rather than adjudicated, intellectual, joint legal custody, modify divorce decree, moral development, motion to dismiss, no change in circumstances, no separate standard that courts are to apply in high-conflict cases when considering whether a substantial change of circumstances is present in the context of a petition to modify, Opinion No. 20180713-CA, overnights, PEEPLES v. PEEPLES, ping-pong custody awards, presence or absence of a substantial change in circumstances, primary physical custody, protective order, reasonable degree of stability, res judicata, school year, settlement conference, sole custody, sole physical custody, stable employment, stable home environment, summertime, Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.4(2)(b), Utah Court of Appeals, violations of decree could be resolved in contempt proceedings, violence

2019 UT App 207 – THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ADAM LEGRANDE PEEPLES, Appellee, v. ANNALEISE T. PEEPLES, Appellant. Opinion No. 20180713-CA Filed December 19, 2019 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Andrew H. Stone No. 044901980 Brian…

Should we put divorcing couples in an adversarial divorce court system?

People who are getting divorced fall into one of two categories: those who want to divorce while doing each other as little harm as possible; and those who don’t care what happens to their spouses in divorce and who are…

What is the best comeback a judge has ever made in court?

September 17, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Children in Divorce, Dirty Tricks, Divorce Attorneys, Divorce Law, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Preparedness

best comeback, judge's combeback, suffer fools gladly

I was in a divorce case in which the mother’s attorney was claiming that the father should have limited custodial and parent time with their children because, as the mother’s attorney put it, the father had “strict religious beliefs” (this…

Why is it common for the custodial parent to villainize the ex to their child?

I don’t know if it is common for one parent in a divorce (custodial or non-custodial) to villainize their ex to the child, but we know it happens frequently and any time it occurs is too often. And let’s clarify…

How did your parents’ divorce when you were a child affect your adult life?

July 17, 2019

Amicable Divorce, Best Interest of the Child, Children in Divorce, Co-parenting, Coping With Divorce, Divorce Fears, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Prevention/Marriage Preservation, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Women's Divorce Issues

children of divorce, consequences of divorce for children, effect of divorce on children

My parents did not divorce, but I base my answer to this question on the experiences of my clients, whether it be how their own children reacted to their divorce or how my clients felt as children when their parents…

After a divorce, is joint residential custody better or worse for the children?

Let’s indulge an analogy to answer this question. Is sugar good for you, or bad for you? It depends upon the circumstances. An occasional slice of cake or pie is a safe and pleasant way to enjoy sugar. ‘Nothing wrong…

Pulham v. Kirsling – 2018 UT App 65 – custody, parent-time, child support

July 3, 2019

Attorney Fees, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Child Support, Children in Divorce, Co-parenting, Custody, Custody Evaluation, Divorce Court, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Expert Witnesses, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Joint Legal Custody, Joint Physical Custody, Legal Custody, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Child Custody, Modification of Parent-time, Parent Time, Petition to Modify Decree of Divorce, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Relocation, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Court Rules, Utah Law

2018, 2018 UT App 65, amended decree, April 12, attorney fees on appeal, change elementary schools, commuting by car, custody evaluation, custody evaluator, final say, friends, income imputed, joint physical and legal custody, Judge Richard D. McKelvie, jurisdiction is limited, Margaret S. Edwards Attorney for Appellant, modification of parent-time, modifying child custody, motion for new trial, newly discovered evidence, No. 104901246, not in child’s best interest, notice of appeal, Office of Recovery Services (ORS), Opinion Nos. 20150577-CA and 20160236-CA, past-due child support, petition to modify custody, primary custodial parent, Pulham v. Kirsling, routine, rule 59(a) Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Steve S. Christensen and Clinton R. Brimhall Attorneys for Appellee, substantial and material change in circumstances, surroundings, Third District Court Salt Lake Department, unnecessary adjustment, Utah Code section 30-3-35, Utah Court of Appeals

Pulham v. Kirsling – 2018 UT App 65 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS KRISTEN PULHAM, Appellee, v. WILLIAM KIRSLING, Appellant. Opinion Nos. 20150577-CA and 20160236-CA Filed April 12, 2018 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Richard D. McKelvie…

2018 UT App 181 – Chaparro v. Torero – default judgment, findings of fact, child custody

May 29, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Custody, Custody Evaluation, Dirty Tricks, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Procedure, Evidence, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parental Rights, Physical Custody, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

“before a district court may enter a judgment by default that transfers custody of a child, 2017 UT App 10, 391 P.3d 1051, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982), Blocker v. Blocker, Hogge v. Hogge, the trial court must take evidence and then make findings that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred and that transferring custody of the child is in the child’s best interests.”, Utah Code § 30-3-10.4(2)

2018 UT App 181 – Chaparro v. Torero THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ELDA CHAPARRO, Appellant, v. ENRIQUE TORERO, Appellee. Opinion No. 20170494-CA Filed September 20, 2018 Second District Court, Ogden Department The Honorable Ernest W. Jones No. 134901419 Randall…

Nebeker v. Orton – 2019 UT App 23 – child custody and parent-time

May 28, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Custody, Dirty Tricks, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Joint Legal Custody, Joint Physical Custody, Legal Custody, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parent Time, Parental Fitness, Parental Rights, Paternity, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law, Visitation, Women's Divorce Issues

§ 30-3-34, § 30-3-35, § 30-3-35.5, ¶ 26, 1999 UT App 290, 2001 UT App 225, 2009 UT App 233, 2014 UT 10, 2016 UT App 135, 2017 UT App 192, 2018 UT App 38, 2018 UT App 5, 217 P.3d 733, 29 P.3d 676, 326 P.3d 645, 379 P.3d 890, 406 P.3d 258, 414 P.3d 933, 420 P.3d 53, 436 (Utah 1993), 604 (Utah 1989), 761 P.2d 942 (Utah Ct. App. 1988), 776 P.2d 599, 850 P.2d 431, 989 P.2d 491, Bond v. Bond, Davis v. Davis, Elmer v. Elmer, Fullmer v. Fullmer, Gillmor v. Wright, Hudema v. Carpenter, K.P.S. v. E.J.P., Kimball v. Kimball, Shuman v. Shuman, State v. Nielsen, Taft v. Taft, Utah code

Nebeker v. Orton – 2019 UT App 23 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS SHANE NEBEKER, Appellant, v. TRISHA ANN ORTON, Appellee. Opinion No. 20170438-CA Filed February 14, 2019 Sixth District Court, Richfield Department The Honorable Marvin D. Bagley No. 154600140…

2019 UT App 83 – Nave Free v. Free – modification of child support

May 23, 2019

Assets/Debt/Property, Best Interest of the Child, Child Support, Child Support Modification, Children in Divorce, Divorce Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Child Support, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

2004 UT App 314, 2009 UT App 152, 2013 UT App 296, 2015 UT App 308, 2016 UT 48, 2016 UT App 125, 2016 UT App 135, 2017 UT App 192, 2018 UT App 195, 311 B.R. 618, 323 P.3d 586, 365 P.3d 719, 379 P.3d 882, 379 P.3d 890, 387 P.3d 1000, 406 P.3d 258, 437 P.3d 464, 78B-12-210(9)(b)(iii), 897 N.Y.S.2d 401, 98 P.3d 1178, Bagley v. Bagley, Cantrell v. Cantrell, Child Support, Diener v. Diener, Dole v. Dole, Earhart v. Earhart, Fish v. Fish, Hansen v. Hansen, In re Harrelson, income had substantially increased, medical expenses of children, needs, petition to modify the divorce decree, Poberesky v. Poberesky, relative wealth, remarried, renting out a house, Shuman v. Shuman, substantial change in material circumstances, Taft v. Taft, upward deviation, Utah Child Support Act, Utah Code §§ 78B-12-101 to 403

2019 UT App 83 – Nave Free v. Free THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LINDA LEE NAVE-FREE, Appellee, WENLOCK DUANE FREE JR., Appellant. Opinion No. 20170751-CA Filed May 16, 2019 Fourth District Court, Heber Department The Honorable Jennifer A. Brown…

2019 UT App 82 – Blocker v. Blocker – terminating supervised parent-time

May 22, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Children in Divorce, Custody, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parent Time, Parental Fitness, Parental Rights, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Supervised Parent-time, Supervised Visitation, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Visitation, Women's Divorce Issues

(Utah Ct. App. 1998), ¶ 33, 2000 UT App 213, 2009 UT App 365, 2016 UT App 94, 2017 UT App 10, 2017 UT App 192, 2018 UT App 137, 2018 UT App 184, 2018 UT App 196, 223 P.3d 456, 374 P.3d 45, 391 P.3d 1051, 406 P.3d 258, 427 P.3d 1221, 437 P.3d 370, 437 P.3d 445m, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982), 694 P.2d 608 (Utah 1984), 967 P.2d 942, Becker v. Becker, best interests of the child, bifurcated procedure, Blocker v. Blocker, change in circumstances, changed circumstances, Childs v. Childs, Erickson v. Erickson, Hanson v. Hanson, Hogge v. Hogge, Jensen v. Jensen, Jones v. Jones, Lay v. Lay, maintaining relationship with child, mandate rule, older child, professional therapy, Shuman v. Shuman, speak by phone, special master, Stephens v. Stephens, unable to afford supervised visitation, unsupervised parent-time, welfare, without incident

2019 UT App 82 – Blocker v. Blocker THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS KIRSTEEN DIDI BLOCKER, Appellee, MICHAEL PHILLIP BLOCKER, Appellant. Opinion No. 20170167-CA Filed May 16, 2019 Fourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable James R. Taylor No. 024402553…

New laws from 2019 Utah Legislative Session – Section 30-3-34 – “best parent”?

May 14, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Children in Divorce, Divorce Law, Utah Code, Utah Law

30-3-34, best interest of the child, Utah code

New laws from 2019 Utah Legislative Session – Section 30-3-34 – “best parent”? Welcome back to our feature on new laws from the 2019 Utah Legislative Session. In 2019 the legislature amended section 30-3-34. Some amendments were good, some bad.…

New laws from 2019 Utah Legislative Session – Section 30-3-34

May 13, 2019

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Children in Divorce, Divorce Law, Utah Law

2019 Legislative Session, 30-3-34, emotional health, Utah code

Welcome back to our feature on new laws from the 2019 Utah Legislative Session. In 2019 the legislature amended section 30-3-34. That code section provides that a noncustodial parent will be awarded according to the statutory minimum schedule unless a…

Cox v. Hefley 2019 UT App 60 – attorney consent or consultation, third party decision-maker

2019 UT App 60 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS CAMERON MICHAEL COX, Appellee, v. PAIGE CHARISSA HEFLEY, Appellant. Opinion No. 20170903-CA Filed April 18, 2019 Second District Court, Ogden Department The Honorable W. Brent West No. 134901221 David Pedrazas, Attorney…

Which is best, divorce or stay married for the sake of the kids?

February 5, 2019

Amicable Divorce, Best Interest of the Child, Children in Divorce, Divorce Prevention/Marriage Preservation

divorce or stay married?, stay together for the kids, stay together for the sake of the children

Question: Do you think married people should be able to get a divorce if one or both sides no longer love the other even if they have a kid/kids, or if they have a kid/kids they should only be able…

Menu