Relocation Clauses in Decrees that Change Custody are Unenforceable

Elison v. Elison, 2011 UT App 272, Utah Court of Appeals August 18, 2011

Father and Mother were divorced in November 2004.  The stipulated Decree of Divorce included a provision that transferred custody to Father if Mother relocated outside of Utah.  Mother moved and the District Court enforced the decree and the custody transferring provision.  Mother Appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that enforcement of status quo and best interests is the intent of Rule 106 rather than enforcement of the decree.  Rule 106 provides that the Decree that is to be modified stays in effect until the modification is complete.  The court may only change custody or parent-time to address and immediate and irreparable harm.

The Court read this rule to mean that during a modification action, the children should remain with the same primary custodian, unless remaining would threaten immediate and irreparable harm.  Reversed and Remanded

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/taylor081811.pdf

Stability Is Key Factor in Deciding Best Interests of Special Needs Children

Grindstaff v. Grindstgaff, 2010 UT App. 261, (Utah Court of Appeals September 23, 2010).

Mother appealed the trial court’s award of custody to Father.  Mother and Father had two children, one with special needs.  The trial court found that the parties had been equally engaged in raising the parties’ minor children.  The trial court found that while stability was important for all the children, it was critically important to the parties’ special needs child. Because Mother had planned to move to Nevada, the trial court awarded custody to Father. Mother’s claim for joint custody was likewise denied because of the critical need for stability.

Wife also appealed the trial court’s refusal to admit testimony her expert.  At trial, Wife’s counsel conceded that the expert was not a custody evaluator; as such, any findings by her expert could not be used to rebut the custody evaluator’s findings. 

Finally, as to Wife’s denied attorney fees that were denied at trial because Father did not have the ability to pay the attorney fees,  the Court of Appeals found that while the trial court has a duty to hold a party in contempt, it also has great discretion in crafting a punishment to ensure compliance.

Affirmed on all issues.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/grindstaff092310.pdf

Custody: Joint-Custody Cannot Be Ordered Unless One of the Parties Submits a Parenting Plan

Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy, 2009 UT App. 77, ---P.3d---, (Utah Court of Appeals, March 19, 2009).

Sergei Trubeztkoy was awarded joint-legal custody of the parties’ minor children, and a larger portion of the marital estate. Leslie Smith Trubetzkoy (Wife) appealed the trial court’s decisions as to custody, parent-time, the accounting of the business, and grounds for divorce. The Court of appeals affirmed the property distribution and the grounds for divorce, but reversed and remanded the trial court decision on custody.

The Court found that before a trial court can award joint-legal custody either or both parties must submit a proposed parenting plan. Without a parenting-plan the trial court cannot award joint-custody of the children. If a parenting plan has been submitted, then the court should then evaluate the best interests of the children. Addtionally, the court found that the statutory parent-time schedule is presumed to be in the best interests of the children. The burden is on the party attempting to deviate from the statute. Mother failed to justify the deviation. While the property distribution was disproportionate it was not disproportionate enough to be an abuse of discretion. Wife’s final request was for the Court to change the grounds of divorce from irreconcilable differences to adultery. The Court denied this request because it was based solely on Wife’s preference.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/trubetzkoy031909.pdf