Domestic Relations Commissioners Archives

How Long Does a Child Custody Court Hearing Take?

rprise that it usually takes much less time and effort to prepare for a proffer hearing than preparing for a full evidentiary hearing. In a proffer hearing the client won’t do much, if anything, during the actual hearing, with the…

Is the Johnny Depp divorce trial actually newsworthy?

The divorce trial wasn’t all that newsworthy or memorable (celebrities divorcing is expected), it’s his defamation trial against his ex-wife that is newsworthy. Why? Although his defamation case is not as relevant to the country as news that affects us…

Widdison v. Widdison – 2022 UT App 46 – custody modification

April 13, 2022

Divorce Utah

Appeal, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Children in Divorce, Coping With Divorce, Court Orders, Court Rules, Custody, Dirty Tricks, Divorce, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Evidence, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Joint Legal Custody, Joint Physical Custody, Judges, Justice and Equity, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Child Custody, Modification of Child Support, Modification of Decree of Divorce, Modification of Parent-time, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Motion Practice, Noncustodial parents, Parental Rights, Petition to Modify Decree of Divorce, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Sole Custody, Special Circumstances, Unwed Parents, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Court Rules, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

best interest, best interests, discretion, Modification, Parent Time, physical custody, Relocation, stability, substantial and material change in circumstances, Utah Code § 30-3-10.1, Utah Code § 30-3-10.4, Utah Code § 30-3-34, Utah Code § 30-3-37, Utah Code §30-3-36

Widdison v. Widdison – 2022 UT App 46 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS NICOLE WIDDISON, Appellant, LEON BRYANT WIDDISON, Appellee. Opinion No. 20200484-CA Filed April 7, 2022 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Robert P. Faust No.…

Law from a legal assistant’s point of view, week 39: Judges, part III

By Quinton Lister, legal assistant For those following along at home, you are aware that I have posted about judges before. Through the course of my current employment as a legal assistant, much has been learned about judges and their…

2022 UT App 15 – Miller v. DaSilva – protective order objections

February 10, 2022

Divorce Utah

Abuse, Appeal, Civil Stalking, Civil Stalking Injunction, Court Orders, Court Rules, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Domestic Violence, Judges, Legal System, Men's Divorce Issues, Protective Orders, Stalking, Stalking Injunction/Civil Stalking Injunction, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Court Rules, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

§ 78B-7-604, § 78B-7-603, 10 days, 14 days, Chapter 7, cohabitant abuse, cohabitant abuse act, cohabitant abuse protective order, Cohabitant Abuse Protective Orders, commissioner, domestic abuse, ex parte protective order, hearing, Judicial Code, Part 6, petitioner, protective order, Protective Orders and Stalking Injunctions, recommendations, respondent, rule 108, Title 78B, Utah Court of Appeals, Utah R. Civ. P. 108(a), Utah R. Jud. Admin. 6-401, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure

2022 UT App 15 – Miller v. DaSilva http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/view.html?court=appopin&opinion=Miller v. Dasilva20220203_20200719_15.pdf THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LISA M. MILLER, Appellant, v. AMY ELIZABETH DASILVA, Appellee. Opinion No. 20200719-CA Filed February 3, 2022 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable…

Ward v. McGarry – 2021 UT App 51

Ward v. McGarry – 2021 UT App 51 NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. Court of Appeals of Utah. Sara WARD, Appellant, v. Meredith MCGARRY, Appellee. …

When do trial lawyers most feel like “they are reading tea leaves”?

In my personal experience, most of the time, with most judges. I’m a divorce and family lawyer in Utah, and family law gives judges such broad discretion that even those to whom their broad discretion has not gone to their…

Did you ever go to court and realize for the judges and attorneys it’s kind of all a big game?

Yes, in my experience, there are aspects of the legal system and the practice of law that some lawyers and judges see and treat as a game. You see lawyers and judges who observe, regularly that “that lawyer/that judge did…

Recent thoughts about family law

Recent thoughts about family law I’ve been prompted recently to express my thoughts and opinions about the judiciary generally in the family law context. Here are a few thoughts I feel are worth sharing: – Too often litigants and attorneys…

S.B. 122 just passed! So what? Joint equal physical custody.

March 6, 2021

Divorce Utah

Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, Child Support Calculation, Court Orders, Custody, Custody Evaluation, Daycare, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Holiday Parent-time, Joint Physical Custody, Judges, Justice and Equity, Legal System, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parent Time, Parental Fitness, Parental Rights, Parenting Plan, Physical Custody, Preparing for Divorce, Uncategorized, Utah Code, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

§ 30-3-35.2, §30-3-35.2. Equal parent-time schedule, 30-3-35.2, ability to assist, actively involved, after school care, assistance with homework, bath time, bedtime for the child, caring for the child, child's life, child's school, child’s best interest, demonstrated responsibility, distance, each parent, effectively facilitate, equal, equal custody, equal parent-time, equal parent-time schedule, extracurricular activities, factors, flexibility of employment, geographic distance, health of each parent, health of parent, health of the child, history and ability to implement a flexible schedule for the child, involvement in child care, joint custody, joint equal custody, meal preparation, parent's bond with the child, physical facilities of each parent's residence, presence, provide appropriate playtime, relevant, residence, s.b. 122, Subsection 30-3-10(6), Utah code, volunteer efforts

S.B. 122 (4th Substitute) passed by the Utah State Legislature March 5, 2021! Who should care and why? The elephant in the room is this: if there is no gender bias/sexual discrimination that is preventing fit, able, worthy fathers from…

What are the Steps for Getting Divorced in Utah?

What are the Steps for Getting Divorced in Utah? To start the divorce process, you must begin by filing what is called a complaint or a petition for divorce with the court. This means you are suing your spouse for…

Is it unreasonable to refuse to reside in the same town where your ex-spouse lives?

July 29, 2020

Divorce Utah

Child Custody, Dirty Tricks, Divorce Preparedness, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Joint Physical Custody

Is it unreasonable to refuse to buy a home in the same town or city that an ex-spouse lives in even though it is an affordable location? Not if residing in the same town/city in which your ex-spouse resides will…

Why Won’t Judges and Commissioners Interview Children?

July 7, 2020

Divorce Utah

Child Custody, Custody, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Judges, Utah Code

child interviews, commissioners interviewing children, GAL, guardian ad litem, judges interviewing children, Utah Code § 30-3-10(5)(b)(i)

I recently participated in a hearing before a domestic relations commissioner in which the commissioner refused to interview a child and ordered a guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed, even though 1) the commissioner had the exact same child interview training…

How many states favor mothers in child custody proceedings?

How many states favor giving the child to its mother in a custody hearing? You’re asking a good question, but it’s not the question you think you’re asking. The question is not whether a particular “state” favors awarding custody of…

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

July 3, 2019

Divorce Utah

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 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…

Can anyone go to court and just watch?

April 12, 2019

Divorce Utah

Court Rules, Divorce Fears, Divorce Lawyers, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Domestic Relations Commissioners

courts open to the public, prepare for court

Can anyone go into a court room and sit in the back seat and just watch? Why or why not? Courts are open to the public With the exception of a few court proceedings that are not open to the…

Why are there no penalties for false allegations in divorce and custody issues?

December 5, 2018

Divorce Utah

Abuse, Child Abuse, Dirty Tricks, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Domestic Relations Commissioners, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Women's Divorce Issues

Why are there no penalties for false allegations in divorce and custody issues? First, there are penalties meted out; in my opinion few (far too few) in law enforcement, child protective services, and courts, however, are sensitive to lying and…

Day v. Barnes – 2018 UT App 143 – objecting party does not bear burden of showing commissioner recommendation was erroneous

September 19, 2018

Divorce Utah

Domestic Relations Commissioners, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions

burden, independent findings of fact and conclusions of law, objection, objection to commissioner's recommendations, rule 108, rule 108 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 108(f)

Day v. Barnes – 2018 UT App 143 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS MACAELA DAY, Appellant and Cross-appellee, v. TYLER BARNES, Appellee and Cross-appellant. Opinion No. 20160974-CA Filed July 27, 2018 Second District Court, Farmington Department The Honorable David M.…