Blog

“I want more time with my children.”

“Our children want to spend more time with me.”

“My ex-spouse does not exercise the time he/she was awarded with our children.”

What do I have to do to modify the child custody and/or parent-time award?

Many, many Utah parents find themselves a year or so down the road from the entry of their decree of divorce and dissatisfied with the child custody and/or parent-time award they ended up with (whether after settling the case or having gone to trial). They ask what they need to do and what they need to prove to modify the child custody and/or parent-time award. Recently, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed this question in their decision from the case of Corn v. Groce (2024 UT App 84). This part of the decision answers that question.

_________

1. Statutory Standard for Modification of a Custody Order

¶22      To modify a custody order, a district court must engage in a two-step procedure. First, the court must find that “a material and substantial change of circumstance has occurred.” Utah Code § 30-3-10.4(4)(b)(i). Second, the court must find that “a modification of the terms and conditions of the order would be an improvement for and in the best interest of the child.” Id. § 30-3-10.4(4)(b)(ii).

¶23      To satisfy the first step, “the party seeking modification must demonstrate (1) that since the time of the previous decree, there have been changes in the circumstances upon which the previous award was based; and (2) that those changes are sufficiently substantial and material to justify reopening the question of custody.” Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51, 54 (Utah 1982). “Only if circumstances have materially and substantially changed may the court proceed to the second step—a determination as to the manner in which custody should be modified, if at all, based on a de novo review of the child’s best interests.”[1] Doyle v. Doyle, 2011 UT 42, ¶ 24, 258 P.3d 553 (quotation simplified). “The district court’s determination that there has or has not been a [material and] substantial change in circumstances is presumed valid and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” Harper v. Harper, 2021 UT App 5, ¶ 13, 480 P.3d 1097 (quotation simplified).

¶24      “Because the required finding of a material and substantial change of circumstances is statutory, neither this court nor the supreme court has purported to—or could—alter that requirement.” Peeples v. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 13, 456 P.3d 1159 (quotation simplified). As such, the change-in-circumstances requirement applies in all cases where a district court is considering a petition to modify custody. However, Utah courts have recognized that in certain cases, a petitioner seeking to modify a custody order may be required to make a lesser showing that a change of circumstances qualifies as “sufficiently substantial and material.” Hogge, 649 P.2d at 54. Courts have allowed a lesser showing in two general types of cases.

¶25 The first category of cases turns on “the type of modification sought.” Haslam v. Haslam, 657 P.2d 757, 758 (Utah 1982). “While altering custody orders generally requires a showing of substantial change in circumstances material to the modification of custody, a lesser showing may be required when the change sought is not a change of custody.” Jones v. Jones, 2016 UT App 94, ¶ 10, 374 P.3d 45 (citation omitted). Where a petitioner is seeking to modify parent-time, rather than custody, “the petitioner is required to make only some showing” of a material and substantial change in circumstances, “which does not rise to the same level as the substantial and material showing required when a district court alters custody.” Erickson v. Erickson, 2018 UT App 184, ¶ 16, 437 P.3d 370 (quotation simplified). Indeed, a court may “determine that a change in circumstances warrants modification of parent-time while simultaneously determining there is no substantial and material change in circumstances to justify a modification of custody. In other words, it is not necessarily erroneous for a court to determine that a particular change in circumstances is sufficient enough to warrant a change in a parent-time schedule, but not significant enough to warrant a modification of custody.” Id.

¶26 “Custody and parent-time are conceptually distinct.” McFarland v. McFarland, 2021 UT App 58, ¶ 36, 493 P.3d 1146 (quotation simplified). “[P]hysical custody encompasses the ability to make day-to-day decisions in a child’s life,” Blake v. Smith, 2023 UT App 78, ¶ 15, 534 P.3d 761, whereas “parent-time more narrowly refers to the amount of time that a parent is entitled to spend with the child,” Widdison v. Widdison, 2022 UT App 46, ¶ 44, 509 P.3d 242 (quotation simplified). Moreover, there are two types of physical custody: joint physical custody and sole physical custody. See Utah Code § 30-3-10.1(3)(a). The “dividing line” between the two is statutorily defined by “the number of overnight visits enjoyed by each parent.” McFarland, 2021 UT App 58, ¶ 36. When a “child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year,” the parents have joint physical custody of the child. Utah Code § 30-3-10.1(3)(a). But when a child stays with one parent for “at least 70% of the overnights,” that parent is considered to have “sole physical custody” of the child. See McFarland, 2021 UT App 58, ¶ 36. Therefore,

when a change occurs that causes one parent to obtain enough additional overnights to move from one category to another (e.g., from 25% of overnights to 35%, or from 65% to 75%), there has been a change in physical custody. But when a change occurs in which one parent obtains a few additional overnights but not enough to move from one category to another, the change constitutes only a change in parent-time, and not a change in physical custody, as that term is statutorily defined.

Id. (quotation simplified). Thus, although parent-time and custody are conceptually distinct, a parent-time schedule is merely a subspecies of a custody order, see Utah Code § 30-3-10(1), and modification of a parent-time schedule is therefore governed by the same statute that controls modification of a custody order, see id. § 30-3-10.4.

¶27 The second category of cases turns on “the nature of the underlying custody award.” Zavala v. Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, ¶ 17, 366 P.3d 422. The change-in-circumstances requirement for modifying a custody award “is based in the principles of res judicata, for courts typically favor the one-time adjudication of a matter to prevent the undue burdening of the courts and the harassing of parties by repetitive actions.” Taylor v. Elison, 2011 UT App 272, ¶ 13, 263 P.3d 448 (quotation simplified). But not all custody decrees are adjudicated; indeed, a custody award may be “determined by stipulation or default.” Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599, 603 (Utah 1989). In cases where a district court is considering an unadjudicated award, such as the stipulated award at issue in this case, “the res judicata policy underlying the changed-circumstances rule is at a particularly low ebb.” Id. Because of this, “a lesser showing will support modifying a stipulated award than would be required to modify an adjudicated award.” Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, ¶ 17.

¶28 A court assessing exactly how much lesser the required showing might be should not “view the adjudicated/stipulated dichotomy as entirely binary” but should instead “examine the origin of the order in question and analyze the extent to which the order—even if stipulated—reflects the result of robustly contested litigation aimed at ascertaining the best interest of the child.” Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 17. Thus, in a situation where a custody order is technically stipulated, the court may nevertheless decline to water down the change-in-circumstances showing if the circumstances are such that the court has a “relatively high confidence that the custody order was in line with the best interests of the children.” Id. ¶ 20; see also id. ¶ 18 (concluding that although the custody order being modified was technically stipulated, the district court did not err in requiring a normal change-of-circumstances showing because the stipulation was entered after the parties participated in years of litigation, during which they were represented by counsel); Spencer v. Spencer, 2023 UT App 1, ¶ 19, 524 P.3d 165 (same).

*****

1. Modification of Parent-Time

1. Allegations of Changed Circumstances

¶30      In arguing that he made a sufficient showing to justify a change in parent-time, Father points to three things that occurred between the 2019 Stipulation and the March 2022 trial date that he believes constitute sufficient changes to justify modification of parent-time. Those changes are (1) Father’s relocation to Utah, (2) the Children’s strong relationship with Stepmother, and (3) Mother’s troubling behaviors and “emotional reactivity.” But the first two changes on which Father focuses here were not alleged in his petition to modify (or even addressed in his trial memorandum). Nor did they constitute changes that have occurred since the entry of the 2020 Order. And the district court properly concluded that the changes that were alleged in Father’s petition did not justify revisiting the 2020 Order.

¶31      Father’s petition alleged several instances of changed circumstances. After hearing two days of evidence, the district court rejected all of them. It found that three of Father’s allegations—those relating to the Children’s schooling, Mother’s alleged cohabitation, and the issue with vaccinations and medical care—were not supported by any credible evidence. It found that Father’s need to participate in training courses for his employer once or twice a year and Mother’s failure to use a Google calendar were not material changes. And, after analyzing Mother’s finances, it rejected Father’s assertion that Mother could not financially provide for the Children.

¶32 The district court also considered and appropriately rejected the allegation raised by Father that Mother’s behaviors and emotional reactivity were a changed circumstance that had negatively impacted the Children. Instead, it found that the way in which both Mother and Father have interacted contributed to the Children’s need for counseling and that this situation was not a change from prior interactions. It reached a similar conclusion with respect to Father’s allegation that Mother had attempted to undermine him with the Children. And Father has not challenged any of these factual findings.

¶33      Father’s two remaining arguments are that his relocation to Utah and the strong relationship that the Children had forged with Stepmother constitute changed circumstances. But these arguments fail to account for the fact that Father had already remarried and planned on returning to Utah at the time of the 2019 Stipulation. Indeed, the primary rationale for the 2019 Stipulation (on which the 2020 Order was based) was Father’s planned relocation and the 2020 Order had already increased Father’s parent-time based upon that relocation.

¶34    We therefore conclude that the district court correctly applied the change-in-circumstances requirement when determining that Father had not demonstrated a sufficient change. As the party seeking modification, Father bore the burden of demonstrating “(1) that since the time of the previous decree, there [had] been changes in the circumstances upon which the previous award was based; and (2) that those changes [were] sufficiently substantial and material to justify reopening the question of custody.” Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51, 54 (Utah 1982). After considering the evidence presented over the course of the two-day trial, the court concluded that Father had not carried his burden on any of the changes alleged in his petition to modify. Even assuming, for purposes of the discussion, that Father needed to make only a “lesser” showing of changed circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion here for the court to determine that Father’s showing was insufficient. Because Father has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in so finding, we will not second-guess the court’s determination. See Harper v. Harper, 2021 UT App 5, ¶ 13, 480 P.3d 1097 (“The district court’s determination that there has or has not been a substantial change in circumstances is presumed valid and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” (quotation simplified)).

2. Stipulated Order

¶35      Father next contends the district court should have allowed him to get by with a lesser showing of a change of circumstances because he was seeking to modify a stipulated order. However, on the facts of this case, Father has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in declining to allow a lesser showing on this basis.

¶36 In its order declining to modify Father’s parent-time, the district court considered whether the 2020 Order should be considered stipulated or adjudicated. Citing Zavala v. Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, 366 P.3d 422, the court explained that the “adjudicated/stipulated dichotomy is not strictly binary” but instead requires an examination of the “origin” of the underlying order. See id. ¶ 17. The court then found that, “after examining the record and considering the testimony presented, the [2020 Order] in fact reflects the results of robustly contested litigation aimed at ascertaining the best interest of the [C]hildren.”

¶37 Although Father believes the district court should have permitted him to make a lesser change-in-circumstances showing because the 2020 Order was stipulated, he has not directly challenged the court’s factual finding that the 2020 Order was the “result[] of robustly contested litigation aimed at ascertaining the best interest of the [C]hildren.” Given the court’s unchallenged finding, which is supported by the record and entitled to deference on appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence. See Lobendahn v. Lobendahn, 2023 UT App 137, ¶ 27, 540 P.3d 727 (“The existence of conflicting evidence in the record is not sufficient to set aside a district court’s findings. The pill that is hard for many appellants to swallow is that if there is evidence supporting a finding, absent a legal problem—a fatal flaw—with that evidence, the finding will stand, even though there is ample record evidence that would have supported contrary findings.” (quotation simplified)). Consequently, Father has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in rejecting his argument that the nature of the 2020 Order allowed him to make a lesser showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances.

3. Temporary Order

¶38 Lastly, Father contends the district court should have considered the 2020 Order as a “temporary order[], which require[s] no showing of changed circumstances to modify, rather than a fully enforceable custody order.” See Harper v. Harper, 2021 UT App 5, ¶ 17, 480 P.3d 1097 (“[U]nlike a permanent custody order, a temporary custody order is modifiable without a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances.”). We disagree with Father’s contention that the 2020 Order was “temporary.”

¶39      Because the 2020 Order was stipulated, Father contends it must be “interpreted as if it were a contract between the parties.” See McQuarrie v. McQuarrie, 2021 UT 22, ¶ 18, 496 P.3d 44. To that end, he argues, we should “consider each provision [of the 2020 Order] in relation to all others, with a view toward giving effect to all and ignoring none.” Id. (quotation simplified).

¶40 The 2020 Order provides that “[u]pon [Father’s] move to Utah, on a temporary basis until further agreement of the parties or further order of the Court, [Father] shall exercise [extended] parent-time” pursuant to statute. The 2020 Order then outlines the procedure for changing that parent-time: “[A]fter exercising [extended] parent-time for at least (6) months and communicating in writing the desired change in parent-time, the parties will mediate parent-time.”

¶41      Taken together, Father contends these provisions indicate (1) that the conditional parent-time schedule was meant to be temporary and (2) that by entering into the 2019 Stipulation, the parties essentially agreed that Father would not be required to show a change in circumstances in order to modify parent-time. Father is wrong on both fronts.

¶42      First, the extended parent-time schedule did not have an expiration date. Although the provision refers to the schedule being used on a “temporary basis,” when considered in conjunction with the rest of the provision, it is clear that the schedule was intended to be ongoing. Indeed, “temporary basis” is followed immediately after with the phrase “further agreement of the parties or further order of the Court.” As a whole, then, this implies that the schedule outlined in the 2020 Order would continue until the parties could agree on a new schedule or until the court ordered something different. And if neither the parties nor the court sought to change the schedule, then it would remain in place.[2]

¶43      Second, nothing in the 2020 Order explicitly or impliedly eradicated the change-in-circumstances requirement; instead, that order merely set forth part of the process for changing custody. Pursuant to the 2020 Order, the only condition the parties put on modifying the extended parent-time schedule was to notify the other party in writing, triggering a mediation. Father argues that “interpreting that language to mean nothing more than how a party would normally go about modifying a custody order would render that language . . . superfluous.” Thus, in Father’s view, “when Mother and Father agreed that either party could request to modify the parent-time once the conditions in the provision were met, . . . the parties essentially agreed that satisfaction of the conditions (Father’s relocation and exercising the section 30-3-35.1 schedule for six months) constitute a changed circumstances sufficient to modify this parent-time in the future.”

¶44 But “essentially agreeing” is not enough to override the change-in-circumstances requirement. Cf. id. ¶¶ 23–27 (concluding that a divorce decree did not require payment of alimony after remarriage because there was no provision “specifically overrid[ing] the statutory presumption” that alimony terminate upon remarriage (quotation simplified)). The district court is statutorily required to find a material and substantial change in circumstances prior to modifying a custody order. See Utah Code § 30-3-10.4. Thus, without a specific provision overriding the change-in-circumstances requirement, the court was bound by statute to find that circumstances had sufficiently changed prior to modifying the 2020 Order.[3] See McQuarrie, 2021 UT 22, ¶¶ 23–27.

¶45 In sum, the 2020 Order was not temporary. The district court therefore did not err when it declined to treat that order as a temporary order.

*****

CONCLUSION

¶50 The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to modify Father’s parent-time. In particular, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, on this record, that Father had not made even a “lesser” showing of changed circumstances.

____________

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277