Evidence Archives

Do Abusive Parents Get Custody of Their Children? Can Relatives Get Custody Instead?

Do abusive parents get sole custody of their children, even when their children don’t want them to have it? If the children want to stay with a relative who can take care of them instead, can the court award the…

Artificial Fraudulence

May 26, 2023

Divorce Utah

Coping With Divorce, Evidence, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Judges, Justice and Equity, Men's Divorce Issues, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parental Rights, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

abuse, action, assets and debt, audio, authenticity, biased, concerned, deepfakes, diminution and dissipation of assets, discern, duped, email, evidence, fake, fakery, family law, fraud, genuine article, impossible, indistinguishable, infidelity, innocent, invent, judge, judges, justice, legal process, legitimate concerns, level, liars, lies, litigants, meaningless, mockery, offended, opposing counsel, outraged, paranoid, persecuting, pervasively, process, profession, proof, property damage, protect, proud, reality, records, ridiculed, scientific data, Seth Godin, shaming, sincerity, society, spread, substance abuse, surprise, system irreparably, tactics, technology, text, trust, truth, understanding, unprofessional, veracity, verify, vexatious litigator, visual, volume, whistleblower

Seth Godin stated it well when he wrote, “The ease with which someone can invent and spread lies [with advancing technology] is going to take most of us by surprise. It’s going to require an entirely new posture for understanding…

What Should I Do When a Family Court Judge Refuses to Look at My Evidence?

What should I do when a family court judge refuses to look at my evidence of abuse because my ex’s lawyer lied about me bringing it to him when I had a witness with me? What you can or should…

Tithing Can Be a Legitimate Personal Expense in the Context of Determining the Alimony Award

Whether my recollection is true or not, I remember being taught in law school that tithing and other regular charitable giving cannot be treated as a personal expense deduction in bankruptcy. It appears that is no longer true (if ever…

How Could I Use Transcripts of a Victim Impact Statement to Show the Other Party Has Told Lies in Court and Cannot Be Trusted to Be Honest?

May 10, 2023

Divorce Utah

Evidence, Utah

evidence, victim, victim impact

If the statement: is a sworn affidavit or in a form accepted by the court as equivalent to a sworn affidavit; and the content of the affidavit/statement is relevant to the issues before the court in your particular proceeding (“relevant”…

State in Interest of P.J.R., 2023 UT App 27

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF P.J.R., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. C.S., Appellant, V. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion No. 20220264-CA Filed March 23, 2023 Sixth District Juvenile Court, Manti Department…

Scott v. Benson – 2023 UT 4 – Fraudulent Voluntary Declaration of Paternity

2023 UT 4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH TAYLOR LYNN SCOTT, Respondent, v. SARAH CATHERINE BENSON, Petitioner. No. 20210922 Heard October 3, 2022 Filed April 20, 2023 On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals Third…

What Are the Reasons That a Request for a Temporary Order Be Denied in a Family Court Case?

April 13, 2023

Divorce Utah

Divorce, Evidence, Family Law

family court, temporary order, temporary order denial

There can be many reasons, but it should all comes down to one or more of these most basic reasons: The motion for temporary orders does not have valid grounds in the law (in other words, the law does not…

State In Interest of B.W. – 2022 UT App 131

State In Interest of B.W. – 2022 UT App 131 Court of Appeals of Utah. STATE of Utah, IN the INTEREST OF B.W., J.W., and N.W., persons under eighteen years of age. H.W., Appellant, v. State of Utah, Appellee. No.…

In Re K.K. – 2023 UT App 14 – Abuse and Neglect Adjudication

March 15, 2023

Divorce Utah

Abuse, Appeal, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Neglect, Court Orders, Custody, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Emotional abuse, Evidence, Family Law, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Guardianship, Juvenile Court, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law

(b), § 80-1-102(92), ¶ 14, ¶ 27, ¶ 9, 2011 UT 71, 2017 UT 44, 2018 UT App 141, 2020 UT App 114, 2021 UT 36, 2022 UT 39, 424 P.3d 91, 496 P.3d 58, abuse, abuse adjudication, against the clear weight of the evidence, and (B), appeal, both neglected and abused, clear and convincing evidence harmed or threatened harm, clearly erroneous, conclusions of law, defined, domestic violence in the presence of a children, error, Essential Botanical Farms, facts, findings of fact, In re A.B., In re C.M.R., in re E.R., In re K.T., In re N.M., juvenile court, LC v. Kay, mixed questions of law and fact, neglect adjudication, prejudiced, speculate, Utah Code § 80-1-102(1)(a)(i)(A), Utah Code § 80-1-102(37)(a), Utah Code § 80-3-402, Utah Code § 80-3-402(1), Utah Court of Appeals, very highly probable

In re K.K. – 2023 UT App 14 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K., S.K., AND S.K., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. B.K., Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion No. 20220051-CA…

In re K.K. – 2023 UT App 13

March 14, 2023

Divorce Utah

Abuse, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Neglect, Court Orders, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Emotional abuse, Evidence, Family Law, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Guardianship, Juvenile Court, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Uncategorized, Utah Law

(b), § 80-1-102(92), ¶ 14, ¶ 27, ¶ 9, 2011 UT 71, 2017 UT 44, 2018 UT App 141, 2020 UT App 114, 2021 UT 36, 2022 UT 39, 424 P.3d 91, 496 P.3d 58, abuse, abuse adjudication, against the clear weight of the evidence, and (B), appeal, both neglected and abused, clear and convincing evidence harmed or threatened harm, clearly erroneous, conclusions of law, defined, domestic violence in the presence of a children, error, Essential Botanical Farms, facts, findings of fact, In re A.B., In re C.M.R., in re E.R., In re K.T., In re N.M., juvenile court, LC v. Kay, mixed questions of law and fact, neglect adjudication, prejudiced, speculate, Utah Code § 80-1-102(1)(a)(i)(A), Utah Code § 80-1-102(37)(a), Utah Code § 80-3-402, Utah Code § 80-3-402(1), Utah Court of Appeals, very highly probable

In re K.K. – 2023 UT App 13 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.K., S.K., AND S.K., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. D.K., Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion No. 20220050-CA…

Myers v. Myers 2023 UT App 20 – Alimony Modification

March 8, 2023

Divorce Utah

Alimony and Support, Coping With Divorce, Court Orders, Dirty Tricks, Divorce, Divorce Costs, Divorce Court, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Evidence, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Finances, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Husband's or Wife's Business, Judges, Legal System, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Alimony, Modification of Decree of Divorce, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Procedure and Evidence, Termination of Alimony, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

¶ 11, ¶ 14, ¶ 19, ¶ 27, ¶ 28, ¶ 30, ¶ 31, ¶ 42, ¶ 6, ¶ 7, ¶ 8, ¶ 9, ¶¶ 14–15, 1075 (Utah 1985), 1999 UT App 12, 1999 UT App 219, 1999 UT App 41, 2003 UT App 357, 2004 PA Super 37, 2014 UT App 204, 2014 UT App 211, 2017 UT App 150, 2017 UT App 155, 2018 UT App 175, 2018 UT App 189, 2018 UT App 22, 2018 UT App 75, 2019 UT App 207, 2021 UT App 77, 2022 UT App 36, 2022 UT App 88, 2023 UT App 20, 334 P.3d 994, 335 P.3d 378, 402 P.3d 219, 405 P.3d 749, 412 (Utah 1977), 414 P.3d 1023, 424 P.3d 1113, 436 P.3d 294, 437 P.3d 411, 456 P.3d 1159, 496 P.3d 242, 508 P.3d 612, 515 P.3d 481, 565 P.2d 409, 566 (Utah 1985), 700 P.2d 1072, 704 P.2d 564, 80 P.3d 153, 843 A.2d 1247, 973 P.2d 431, 974 P.2d 306, 983 P.2d 1103, ability to pay, alimony, Armendariz v. Armendariz, Barrani v. Barrani, Bukunowski v. Bukunowski, Degao Xu v. Hongguang Zhao, demonstrated need, earning capacity, English v. English, Fox v. Fox, Gerwe v. Gerwe, Jones v. Jones, maximum permissible alimony award, Miner v. Miner, modification of alimony, modifying alimony, Moon v. Moon, Myers v. Myers, need, Nicholson v. Nicholson, Olson v. Olson, Pankhurst v. Pankhurst, Paulsen v. Paulsen, PEEPLES v. PEEPLES, Rehn v. Rehn, Roberts v. Roberts, substantial material change in circumstances, Utah Code § 30-3-5, Utah Court of Appeals, Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, voluntary unemployment, Williamson v. Williamson, Woskob v. Woskob

Myers v. Myers 2023 UT App 20 2023 UT App 20 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS AMY R. MYERS, Appellee, v. JACOB W. MYERS, Appellant. Opinion No. 20220002-CA Filed March 2, 2023 Sixth District Court, Richfield Department The Honorable Brody…

Wellman v. Kawasaki – 2023 UT App 11 – Alimony

March 3, 2023

Divorce Utah

Alimony and Support, Appeal, Coping With Divorce, Court Orders, Divorce, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Divorce Procedure, Evidence, Family Law, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Judges, Men's Divorce Issues, Procedure and Evidence, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Court Rules, Utah Law, Women's Divorce Issues

¶ 14, 2014 UT App 211, 2015 UT 79, 2021 UT App 77, 335 P.3d 378, 459 P.3d 276, 496 P.3d 242, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985), Dahl v. Dahl, equalize the standards of living of each party, financial declaration, Jones v. Jones, Miner v. Miner, need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award, prevent recipient spouse from becoming a public charge, purposes of alimony, Roberts v. Roberts, standard of living that existed during the marriage, statutory alimony factors, supporting] financial documentation, Utah Code § 30-3-5(10), Utah law, Utah R. Civ. P. 26.1(c).

2023 UT App 11 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS DAVID WELLMAN, Appellee, v. KRISTIN KAWASAKI, Appellant. Opinion No. 20210265-CA Filed February 2, 2023 Fourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable Christine S. Johnson No. 174402919 Mary Deiss Brown, Attorney for…

In Re A.H. – 2022 UT App 114 – Termination of Parental Rights

March 2, 2023

Divorce Utah

Adoption, Appeal, Best Interest of the Child, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Neglect, Child Protective Services, Child Support, Court Orders, Custody, Evidence, Family Law, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Grandparent rights, Guardianship, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Judges, Juvenile Court, Mental Illness, Parental Fitness, Parental Rights, Physical Custody, Procedure and Evidence, Substance Abuse, Utah Code, Utah Court of Appeals Decisions, Utah Law

2021 UT 19, 455 U.S. 745, 530 U.S. 57, 648 P.2d 1364, abandonment, abuse, adoption, appeals, best interest, clear and convincing evidence standard, deference, federal and state constitutions Troxel v. Granville, foster parents, fundamental rights, guardianship, In re G.D., In re J.P., juvenile court, lower court findings, most important rights, neglect, parental rights, permanent guardianship, present-tense fashion, relatives, reverse, right of parents to raise their children, Santosky v. Kramer, stipulation, strictly necessary, termination, two-part test, United States Constitution, Utah Code § 80-4-104(1)

2022 UT App 114 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., J.H., J.H., L.H., N.H., S.H., AND E.H., PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. N.J.H. AND S.H., Appellants, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion…

In Re J.E. 2023 UT App 3, Voluntary Declaration of Paternity

2023 UT App 3 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF J.E., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. D.E., Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion No. 20210921-CA Filed January 20, 2023 Third District…

In Re K.T. 2023 UT App 5 – Substantiation of Child Abuse

2023 UT App 5 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, IN THE INTEREST OF K.T., A PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. J.K., Appellant, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellee. Opinion No. 20210553-CA Filed January 20, 2023 Third District…

Do you have any experience on how to challenge a void judgment in a family court?

October 12, 2022

Divorce Utah

Divorce, Divorce Procedure, Education, Evidence, Family Law

excusable neglect, family court, fraus, Grant relief, inadvertences, mistakes, newly discovered evidence, Rule 60(b), Void Judgement

Thanks for asking such a good question. The answer, as it applies in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law (Utah), is found in Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4): Rule 60. Relief from judgment or order. (b)…

Has anyone ever been able to prove narcissistic abuse in divorce court?

Yes, it happens quite frequently.* What people don’t understand is that finding a spouse is a jerk usually doesn’t amount to much in the divorce action. Most people believe—falsely—that if they can show the court that their spouses are narcissists…

Are there experts who can evaluate parental alienation for a custody case?

There are “expert” witnesses for virtually any and every issue in legal actions. Can judges be bamboozled by pseudo-scientific expert witnesses? Without question. Do some judges who know that the so-called expert witness’s testimony is pseudo-scientific bunk (or at least…

Fox v. Fox 2022 UT App 88 – alimony

Fox v. Fox 2022 UT App 88 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS DIANN SHERI FOX, Appellant, v. BENJAMIN DAVIS FOX, Appellee. Opinion No. 20200949-CA Filed July 14, 2022 Fifth District Court, St. George Department The Honorable Matthew L. Bell No.…