custody evaluator Archives

How useful are a GAL’s or custody evaluator’s recommendations?

How useful are a GAL’s or custody evaluator’s recommendations? This post is the twelfth in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment of guardians ad litem (“GALs” for short) in Utah child custody cases when the judge…

Why Not Have the Judge Interview the Children About Child Custody?

Why Not Have the Judge Interview the Children About Child Custody? Why Appoint a GAL or Custody Evaluator When the Judge Can Interview the Children? This post is the first in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody…

There is nothing a GAL could learn how to do that a judge cannot also learn how to do equally well.

There is nothing a GAL could learn how to do that a judge cannot also learn how to do equally well. This post is the ninth in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment…

Which Is Better: spending thousands on GAL/custody evaluator or $0 on a judge interview?

December 25, 2020

Divorce Utah

Child Custody, Children in Divorce, Co-parenting, Coping With Divorce, Custody Evaluation, Divorce Fears, Divorce Law, Divorce Mistakes, Divorce Preparedness, Evidence, Expert Witnesses, Fathers' Divorce Issues, GAL (Guardian ad Litem), Judges, Men's Divorce Issues, Modification of Child Custody, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Parent Time, Parental Alienation, Parental Fitness, Parenting Plan, Personality Disorders, Physical Custody, Sexual Abuse, Utah Code, Utah Court Rules, Women's Divorce Issues

24 years, appointed, arguments, children, compelling, court-sponsored hearsay, court's record, custody evaluator, debate, free of charge, GAL, guardian ad litem, inherently traumatic, interview, interview children directly, judge, lack merit, private guardian ad litem, puts them in the middle, qualified, second hand, spend, tens of thousands, third hand, thousands, valid

Which Is Better: spending thousands on GAL/custody evaluator or $0 on a judge interview? How could it be better to spend thousands on a GAL or custody evaluator when the judge can interview children free of charge? This post is…

Believing Judges Interviewing Children Harms Children Rests on False Premises

This post is the eighth in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment of guardians ad litem (“GALs” for short) in Utah child custody cases when the judge could simply interview the children instead.…

Does having the judge interview the children traumatize the children?

December 23, 2020

Divorce Utah

Abuse, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Child Neglect, Children in Divorce, Court Orders, Court Rules, Custody, Custody Evaluation, Divorce, Divorce Attorneys, Divorce Causes, Divorce Mistakes, Emotional abuse, Family Law, Fathers' Divorce Issues, Firing a Divorce Lawyer, GAL (Guardian ad Litem), Judges, Justice and Equity, Juvenile Court, Legal Custody, Legal System, Modification of Child Custody, Modification of Parent-time, Mothers' Divorce Issues, Noncustodial parents, Physical Custody, Preparing for Divorce, Utah Code, Utah Law, Utah Supreme Court Decisions

§ 30-3-10(5), $10, $3, 000, better, child abuse, child witness, children, custody evaluator, different, effectively, free of charge, functionally, GAL, guardian ad litem, hearsay, interview, judge, LCSW, less time, mental health professional, on the record, parents, Psychologist, second hand information, skilled, spending, thousands, trauma, traumatize, Utah code, Utah Legislature

Does having the judge interview the children traumatize the children? This post is the second in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment of guardians ad litem (“GALs” for short) in Utah child…

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

January 7, 2020

Divorce Utah

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 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…

Can custody evaluators see through a narcissist’s lies?

July 29, 2019

Divorce Utah

Child Custody, Child Custody Modification, Co-parenting, Custody, Custody Evaluation

custody evaluation, custody evaluator, lies, narcissist

No, not simply by virtue of their being custody evaluators. Sometimes custody evaluators and other mental health professionals give the impression (either deliberately or inadvertently) that they have magic, infallible powers of perception that make them able to detect lies…

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…

LeFevre v. Mackelprang – 2019 UT App 42 – joint custody analysis

2019 UT App 42 – THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS – LeFevre v. Mackelprang AMELIA GAYATREE LEFEVRE, Appellee, v. CASEY LEE MACKELPRANG, Appellant. Opinion No. 20171006-CA Filed March 28, 2019 Sixth District Court, Panguitch Department The Honorable Paul D. Lyman…

Tag: custody evaluator