Trial Court Must Articulate a Reasonable Basis and Adequate Findings When Rejecting the Expert Conclusions

Woodward v. La Franca, 2013 UT App 147 Utah Court of Appeals Court June 13, 2013

Father filed a Petition to Modify requesting custody.  Mother engaged a therapist in an attempt to obtain evidence against Father and to confirm allegations of abuse.  When the therapist failed to provide evidence, Mother obtained a second therapist who also determined that Mother’s allegations were unfounded.  At the Rule 106 hearing, Father was awarded custody because of mother’s actions of having the child constantly interrogated and because of her coaching the child.  The court appointed a special master and a custody evaluator. Mother objected.  At the objection hearing, the therapists, special master and a custody evaluator agreed with the commissioner’s recommendation. The court, however, found that each expert was either unpersuasive and/or not credible and sustained the objection and returned custody to Mother. Father Appeals.

Court of Appeals found that the trial court must articulate a reasonable basis and adequate findings when rejecting the expert conclusions and failure to do so is an abuse of discretion.  The Court of Appeals then reviewed the testimony and criticized the trial court’s summary dismissal of important evidence of coaching and possible mental illness of Mother.

The trial court further erred when finding that because Mother is an acceptable parent, she should retain custody.  The Court pointed out that a best interest evaluation gives no preference to status quo, but must evaluate which parent is the more acceptable parent.  Because the court failed to make adequate findings as to the expert testimony, and because it improperly evaluated the best interest, this case was Reversed and Remanded.

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/woodward061313.pdf 

Stipulation Will be Enforced Unless the Unfair or Unreasonable

Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App. 96, (Utah Court of Appeals, April 22, 2010).

Husband and wife stipulated as to property division.  Husband would refinance a portion of the parties’ marital property and pay Wife from the proceeds.  Husband moved to set aside the stipulation because of mistake and impossibility, as he would not be able to obtain the loan because the property was not producing adequate income.  The trial court commissioner denied the motion to set aside and Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and found that at the time the parties signed the stipulation, Husband assumed the risk of not having enough information.  His failure to obtain the missing information is not a mutual mistake.  The Court also found that there was no unforeseen event to justify rescinding the contract for impossibility.

Husband also argued that the court never found that the stipulation was fair and reasonable. The Court finds that no such finding is required; a stipulation a trial court should enforce a stipulation unless the trial court finds that it is unfair or unreasonable.  Husband also appealed the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing.  The Court found that there was not factual dispute and therefore no need for an evidentiary hearing.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/robinson042210.pdf

Protective Orders: Failure to Request an Evidentiary Hearing is Wavier, Stale Abuse Coupled with New Threats is Admissible

Hedgcock v. Hedgcock, 2009 UT App. 304, (Utah Court of Appeals, October 22, 2009).

Wife obtained an Ex Parte Protective Order. At the hearing, the commissioner recommended that the court enter a permanent Protective Order. The Salt Lake District Court issued the permanent Protective Order on September 4, 2008. Husband objected to Commissioner’s recommendation, but before the judge could hold a hearing on the objection, Wife requested a hearing alleging that Husband had broken into her home on September 6, 2008 (2 days after the hearing, Wife had arrived to her home with her children and new boyfriend to find Husband in the home). Husband responded to the request for hearing and objected to the court considering any new information (i.e. the break-in). The court held a telephone conference, at which time the parties agreed to several things. Among them, that no evidentiary hearing would be required. The district court held a hearing on the objection and denied the motion to dismiss the Protective Order because of past abuse and current threats.

Husband appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals alleging that the district court should not have considered stale abuse (abuse that took place and was subject to a previously dismissed protective order). He also argued that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing.

The Court affirmed, and found that a district court can consider stale abuse when coupled with current threats. The Court also found that Husband had waived any claim to an evidentiary hearing by not requesting it and by never contesting the district court’s conclusion the parties agreed not to have one.

Full Decision available http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/hedgcock102209.pdf