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