custody evaluator Archives

Can custody evaluators see through a narcissist’s lies?

July 29, 2019

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, 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

Can custody evaluators see through a narcissist’s lies?

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

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