Woodward v. LaFranca , 736 Utah Adv. Rep. 24 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                      
    2013 UT App 147
    _________________________________________________________
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    JAMES WOODWARD,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    JULIE LAFRANCA,
    Respondent and Appellee.
    Opinion
    No. 20120545‐CA
    Filed June 13, 2013
    Fourth District, Provo Department
    The Honorable Steven L. Hansen
    No. 064401496
    Sara Pfrommer and John Murray, Attorneys for
    Appellant
    Brent D. Young and Dallas B. Young, Attorneys for
    Appellee
    JUDGE JAMES Z. DAVIS authored this Opinion, in which
    JUDGES WILLIAM A. THORNE JR. and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN
    concurred.
    DAVIS, Judge:
    ¶1     James Woodward (Father) challenges the trial court’s denial
    of his petition to modify the custody provisions of his and Julie
    LaFranca’s (Mother) divorce decree. We reverse and remand for
    further proceedings.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶2   Father filed for divorce from Mother in July 2006,
    immediately before their son (Child) was born. Although Father
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    initially petitioned for custody, he was soon after deployed to Iraq
    and the divorce was put on hold. In November 2007, the parties
    entered into a Stipulation and Agreement regarding custody and
    visitation, wherein Mother was awarded sole physical custody of
    Child subject to Father’s rights to parent time. The trial court
    accepted the stipulation and entered a decree of divorce on
    February 15, 2008.
    ¶3     Between 2008 and 2010, the parties had a number of
    disputes concerning visitation, which resulted in additional court
    proceedings. In August 2009, Mother began making reports to
    police, the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and
    the United States Army (Father’s employer), alleging that Child
    had been physically and sexually abused during Father’s parent
    time. Such complaints continued through July 2010 and resulted in
    a number of forensic interviews and examinations of Child. In
    September 2009, Mother put Child in therapy for the purpose of
    addressing the alleged abuse. After several months in therapy,
    Mother requested a new therapist because “she was looking for
    someone that maybe [Child] would talk to and she didn’t feel like
    she was getting what she needed out of [the first therapist].” The
    second therapist (the Therapist) saw Child between December 2009
    and August 2010. All of Mother’s abuse allegations were
    determined to be unfounded.
    ¶4     On July 28, 2010, Father filed a Petition to Modify Decree of
    Divorce, in which he requested that sole physical custody of Child
    be transferred to him. On November 8, 2010, a domestic
    commissioner (the Commissioner) found that Mother had severely
    abused Child by making repeated unsubstantiated abuse
    allegations to various agencies and subjecting Child to multiple
    unnecessary forensic interviews and examinations. The
    Commissioner determined that it was in Child’s best interests for
    temporary custody to be granted to Father and appointed a special
    master (the Special Master) to monitor and manage the parties’
    case. See generally Utah R. Civ. P. 53. A custody evaluator (the
    Evaluator) was also engaged to evaluate the parties and make
    20120545‐CA                      2               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    recommendations regarding custody in accordance with rule 4‐903
    of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration. See generally Utah R.
    Jud. Admin. 4‐903.
    ¶5       Mother objected to the Commissioner’s recommendations,
    and the matter came before the trial court in a four‐day hearing in
    November and December 2011. The trial court heard testimony
    from, inter alios, Mother, Father, the Evaluator, the Therapist, and
    the Special Master. The Evaluator opined, based on his interviews
    of all relevant individuals, psychological evaluations of Father and
    Mother, and extensive review of myriad collateral materials, that
    the question of which parent’s custody would serve Child’s best
    interests was “not a ‘close call’” and recommended that Father be
    granted sole legal and physical custody of Child. The Therapist and
    the Special Master also testified regarding their concerns about
    Mother regaining sole custody.1 However, the trial court rejected
    the experts’ testimonies and found that “the Commissioner’s
    Recommendation and Order was not justified.” (Emphasis
    omitted.) The trial court’s Findings and Conclusions explained,
    The Court found [Mother]’s testimony sincere and
    credible. Her demeanor and all that demeanor
    encompasses lead the Court to this conclusion.
    Evidence at trial demonstrated that [Mother] desisted
    her allegations many months ago. She also indicated
    that she will “support the relationship between”
    1. The Guardian ad Litem also took the position in the trial court
    that “Child’s best interests would be served by granting the
    Father’s petition to transfer custody to him.” However, the
    Guardian ad Litem has informed this court that “although the
    Office of Guardian ad Litem disagrees with the trial court’s
    decision,” it would not support Father’s appeal in light of the
    discretion granted trial courts in making credibility determinations
    and evaluating best interests, and because it does not consider it to
    be in the best interests of Child for this dispute to be prolonged.
    20120545‐CA                      3                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    [Father] and . . . Child—[Mother]’s support of . . .
    Child and [Father]’s relationship is demonstrated by
    her past facilitation of parent time with [Father] and
    willingness to support such an arrangement in the
    future.
    The court determined that the experts’ testimonies were either not
    credible or not persuasive and refused to employ the experts’
    conclusions in its analysis of the best interests factors. Accordingly,
    relying primarily on Mother’s testimony, the trial court rejected the
    Commissioner’s recommendation and denied Father’s petition to
    modify custody.
    ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
    ¶6      Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
    declining to modify the custody provisions in the divorce decree,
    asserting that the factual findings underlying its decision—its
    credibility determinations in particular—were unsupported by the
    evidence. “The trial court’s decision regarding custody will not be
    upset absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or manifest
    injustice.” Sukin v. Sukin, 
    842 P.2d 922
    , 923 (Utah Ct. App. 1992)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Findings of fact,
    whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set
    aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the
    opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the
    witnesses.” Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a).
    ANALYSIS
    I. Evaluation of the Expert Testimony
    ¶7    Father first challenges the trial court’s determination that the
    Therapist and the Evaluator were not credible and that the Special
    Master’s testimony was unpersuasive. “[A]lthough the trial court
    20120545‐CA                       4                 
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    [is] not bound to accept” an expert’s recommendation, the court is
    expected to articulate “some reason for rejecting the
    recommendation.” Tuckey v. Tuckey, 
    649 P.2d 88
    , 91 (Utah 1982)
    (remanding for additional findings where the trial court rejected,
    without explanation, the recommendations of the Department of
    Social Services); accord Sukin, 
    842 P.2d at 925
    –26 (remanding for
    additional findings where the trial court failed to explain its
    rejection of a custody evaluator’s recommendation). In this case,
    even though the trial court articulated several reasons for rejecting
    the experts’ testimonies, Father maintains that those reasons were
    unsupported by the evidence and insufficient to undermine the
    experts’ credibility. “It is the province of the trier of fact to assess
    the credibility of witnesses, and we will not second‐guess the trial
    court where there is a reasonable basis to support its findings.”
    Reed v. Reed, 
    806 P.2d 1182
    , 1184 (Utah 1991). Nevertheless, a finder
    of fact “is [not] at liberty, under the guise of passing upon the
    credibility of a witness, to disregard his testimony, when from no
    reasonable point of view is it open to doubt.” Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.
    Co. v. Martin, 
    283 U.S. 209
    , 216 (1931). Thus, we may reverse a trial
    court’s credibility determination if its findings in support of that
    determination are “clearly erroneous,” that is, if they “are against
    the clear weight of the evidence, or if the appellate court otherwise
    reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
    made.” State v. Walker, 
    743 P.2d 191
    , 193 (Utah 1987); cf. State v.
    Krukowski, 
    2004 UT 94
    , ¶¶ 23–24, 
    100 P.3d 1222
     (ordering that,
    unless the court of appeals could affirm on alternative grounds, the
    case should be remanded for the trial court to reconsider a
    witness’s credibility where the trial court’s original credibility
    determination was premised on its erroneous view that the witness
    had failed to comply with a duty to disclose certain information to
    the magistrate).
    A. Findings Regarding the Therapist’s Credibility
    ¶8     The Therapist testified that she was concerned about the
    effect Mother’s anxiety over Child’s visits with Father might have
    on Child and on his relationship with Father. She also expressed
    20120545‐CA                        5                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    concern about Mother asking Child “a lot of questions . . . about
    being abused.” The Therapist testified that Mother continually
    pressured her to ask Child about abuse he may have suffered while
    in Father’s custody, and that she had to repeatedly inform Mother
    that it was not the Therapist’s role to question Child in that way.
    According to the Therapist, on one occasion, immediately after
    having been told by the Therapist that Child should not be asked
    such questions, Mother began asking Child “specific questions
    about what had happened” and the Therapist had to ask her to
    return to the waiting room for the remainder of the session.2 The
    Therapist testified that this issue had been addressed with Mother
    “numerous times,” which she clarified meant approximately “eight
    or nine times” over the course of sixteen or seventeen therapy
    sessions. The Therapist also testified regarding an August 29, 2010
    letter she had written at the parties’ request prior to their hearing
    before the Commissioner, in which she stated that “[o]ver the last
    two months, [Mother’s] fear appear[ed] to have heightened.” When
    cross‐examined about the fact that the Therapist had not had
    sessions with Child between June 15 and August 5 of that year, the
    Therapist clarified, “[F]rom the time that I had seen [Mother]
    before [in June], where things seemed to be getting a little better,
    that now I’m seeing her in August and it seemed to be much more
    intensified.”
    ¶9      The trial court found it significant that, despite testifying
    that she had reiterated to Mother “eight or nine times” that the
    Therapist’s role was not to ask Child direct questions about the
    alleged abuse, the Therapist only recorded two or three such
    instances in her therapy notes. It further determined that the
    Therapist could not have known whether Mother’s anxiety had
    “‘heightened’” over “‘the last two months’” at the time she wrote
    the letter because she had not seen Mother during most of the two‐
    month period referenced. Based on these observations, the trial
    2. Mother denied that the Therapist ever asked her to leave the
    session, and the trial court resolved this dispute in Mother’s favor.
    20120545‐CA                      6                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    court determined that the Therapist’s testimony was not credible
    and “discount[ed] her testimony.”
    ¶10 We agree with Father that the trial court has not articulated
    a reasonable basis to reject this testimony. Particularly in light of
    the Therapist’s testimony that Mother’s heightened fears were
    exhibited not by a gradual increase in anxiety, but by a marked
    difference between her behavior at the time of the June sessions
    and her behavior at the time of the August sessions, we do not
    think it reasonable for the trial court to have concluded that the
    Therapist was incapable of observing Mother’s heightened fear as
    described in her letter. Furthermore, although the inconsistency
    between the Therapist’s notes and her testimony regarding the
    number of times she reiterated her role to Mother might be
    sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that the higher
    number was inaccurate, it does not definitively demonstrate the
    inaccuracy of the Therapist’s assertion. And regardless of whether
    the Therapist had this discussion with Mother on three or eight
    occasions, the fact that it had to be reiterated multiple times is
    consistent with the Therapist’s overall concern about the effect
    Mother’s anxiety was having on Child. In any event, we do not
    consider this one inconsistency, on its own, to be a reasonable basis
    for questioning the Therapist’s overall credibility.3
    B. Findings Regarding the Evaluator’s Credibility
    ¶11 The Evaluator determined Mother to be an intelligent,
    capable, and loving parent and explained that Mother had no
    “severe psychopathology . . . that would preclude her [from] . . .
    3. This is not to say that the trial court could not legitimately
    question the Therapist’s claim that she had spoken to Mother about
    the role of a therapist on eight or nine separate occasions. However,
    we do not consider such an inconsistency to necessarily
    compromise the credibility of the Therapist’s entire testimony as
    the trial court concluded.
    20120545‐CA                      7                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    being the primary custodian.” However, the Evaluator believed
    Mother had an unspecified personality disorder characterized by
    paranoia and inflexibility, which he believed would be detrimental
    to Child, and ultimately concluded that Father was more capable
    of promoting Child’s best interests.
    ¶12 The Evaluator observed that Mother had a tendency to
    interpret ordinary developmental b ehaviors and
    circumstances—such as Child having bumps and bruises,
    experiencing nightmares, and wetting the bed—as indicative of
    abuse. One incident that was particularly troubling to the Evaluator
    and exemplified Mother’s overinflation of events was that when
    Child told his Mother that his five‐year‐old brother (Father’s son)
    had urinated on him when they were bathing together, Mother
    interpreted the incident as the brother sexually abusing Child and
    reported that the brother had ejaculated on Child. The Evaluator
    also observed that Mother’s paranoia was evidenced by her belief
    that the Guardian ad Litem and the Evaluator “were either asking
    trick questions or stumping her on questions” when they
    interviewed her and by her frequently asking the police to conduct
    welfare checks on Child while he was visiting Father, “without
    there being any apparent grounds to do that.”
    ¶13 The Evaluator was also concerned about the tone of the
    communications between Mother and Child during the time Child
    was living with Father following the Commissioner’s temporary
    custody order. The Evaluator testified that on approximately a
    dozen occasions, Mother had informed Child that she was praying
    for him and had placed his name on temple prayer rolls, which the
    Evaluator interpreted as giving Child the impression that he was
    in danger at Father’s home. He also testified that similar ideas were
    expressed in postcards Mother sent to Child, identifying one in
    particular that read, “Cannot wait until you are safely home with
    me,” which the Evaluator believed implied that Child was not safe
    where he was.
    20120545‐CA                      8                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    ¶14 The Evaluator testified that his psychological testing of
    Mother produced results consistent with what he had observed in
    her behavior. In particular, Mother scored in the 99th percentile on
    the “cold‐heartedness scale,” which measures “absence of deep
    feelings of guilt, empathy and loyalty, as well as a lack of enduring
    attachment to others[,] . . . reflect[ing] an absence of tender social
    emotions and a callous failure to sympathize with others’
    suffering.” The Evaluator opined that having such a personality
    would permit Mother to more easily “demonize or mischaracterize
    other people who care about [Child]” and may make her more
    willing “to subject[ Child] to a physically intrusive and
    psychologically intrusive evaluation.” Mother also had elevated
    test results relating to depression; “ideas of persecution,” which the
    Evaluator defined as “suspiciousness” and “attributing
    wrongdoing without the degree of evidence that other people
    would consider appropriate to make that attribution”; and “inter‐
    personal passivity,” which impacts an individual’s ability to
    appropriately deal with conflict.
    ¶15 The trial court found the Evaluator’s testimony to be not
    credible based on its determination that his “testimony was
    successfully impeached at trial.” First, the court observed that the
    Evaluator was successfully impeached when he “admitted that his
    testimony . . . that [Mother] had taken . . . Child to a police
    department or DCFS in October 2008 was, in fact, incorrect.”
    However, the Evaluator was actually asked not about occasions
    when Mother had taken Child to a police department or DCFS, but
    about police or DCFS investigations that had occurred. An incident
    did in fact occur in October 2008, but it involved Mother taking
    Child for a medical examination in relation to an abuse allegation,
    which the medical professional indicated would be “refer[red] to
    DCFS.” The Evaluator’s reference to this incident was therefore a
    reasonable response to the question asked and demonstrates, if
    anything, a misunderstanding of the question rather than a
    credibility issue.
    20120545‐CA                       9                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    ¶16 The trial court next pointed out that despite testifying that
    postcards sent to Child contained religious messages similar to
    those expressed in the phone calls, the Evaluator later
    acknowledged on cross‐examination that the postcards did not
    actually contain religious messages. While this may have weakened
    the Evaluator’s testimony regarding the communications, it is not
    inconsistent with the thrust of the Evaluator’s testimony, which
    was that the postcards and the phone calls were concerning
    because regardless of whether the messages discussed prayer in
    particular or more generally referred to Child’s safety, they tended
    to give Child the impression that he was not safe with Father. In
    any event, this minor inconsistency is certainly not sufficient to
    compromise the overall credibility of the Evaluator’s report and
    testimony.
    ¶17 The trial court also took issue with the Evaluator’s testimony
    that Mother’s frequently changing jobs evidenced her inability to
    get along with others. However, the Evaluator’s reference to
    Mother’s employment was not the basis for his determination that
    she had difficulty getting along with others. Rather, his
    recommendation reveals that this determination was supported by
    Mother’s history of “short term relationships, conflicts with former
    spouses[ and employers], and psychological test results,” as well
    as the fact that she had gone through five attorneys in this case and
    that her counseling records indicated that she had become
    alienated from family members and had conflicts with her church
    leaders. The Evaluator acknowledged that “[w]hile none of these
    events are singularly dispositive of the hypothesized personality
    pattern, taken together, the evidence is compelling.” (Emphasis
    added.) Likewise, the Evaluator’s acknowledgment that Mother
    might have had some legitimate reasons to be suspicious of
    Father—one of the trial court’s other justifications for finding the
    Evaluator’s testimony not credible—did not undermine his
    conclusion, supported by psychological testing and corroborating
    observations, that Mother’s paranoia was largely psychological in
    nature and the result of a personality disorder.
    20120545‐CA                      10               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    ¶18 Finally, the trial court determined that the Evaluator’s report
    and testimony were undermined by his heavy reliance on the
    findings of the Commissioner, the Special Master, and the
    Therapist, which the court determined to be either unpersuasive or
    not credible. It is unclear how the trial court reached the conclusion
    that the Evaluator had heavily relied on these experts. The
    Evaluator testified that he considered it his duty “to do [his] own
    evaluation” rather than “mimic what the Commissioner said” and
    that the other sources were more of “a springboard to get
    information.” Indeed, the Evaluator “consulted a great deal of
    collateral material in reaching [his] opinion,” and he testified that
    this case was “probably in the upper ten percent, easy, for the
    amount of materials that [he had] gone through.” Thus, there does
    not appear to be a reasonable basis for the trial court’s
    determination that the Evaluator’s opinion “relied heavily” on the
    opinions of the other experts.
    ¶19 Essentially, the trial court emphasized minor inconsistencies
    from the Evaluator’s two‐day testimony—most of which were
    irrelevant or not actually inconsistent—to support a determination
    that the Evaluator’s entire evaluation and professional conclusions
    were not credible. While it is the prerogative of the trial court to
    weigh the evidence and judge credibility, and while the trial court
    is not bound by the conclusions of a custody evaluator, we
    determine that the trial court exceeded its discretion by rejecting
    the Evaluator’s entire testimony under the facts and circumstances
    of this case.4
    4. Our opinion should not be interpreted as undercutting the trial
    court’s ability to make legitimate credibility determinations or a
    proclamation that every word spoken by the Evaluator was
    inherently credible. Rather, we hold only that the trial court’s
    decision to disregard the Evaluator’s entire testimony and
    evaluation based upon a handful of rather minor inconsistencies
    was erroneous. On remand, in reevaluating the best interests
    (continued...)
    20120545‐CA                      11                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    C. Weighing of the Special Master’s Testimony5
    ¶20 Like the Evaluator, the Special Master testified regarding the
    communications between Mother and Child while Child was living
    with Father. She too expressed concern that Mother was overly
    fearful for Child and was projecting her fears onto Child with
    statements about praying for his safety. She also testified regarding
    Mother’s unwillingness to comply with orders of the Special
    Master by talking to Child about the court case, not letting Child
    end the phone calls when he wanted to, undermining Father’s
    disciplinary decisions, and harassing Father with unreasonable
    numbers of phone calls to Child.6 Although the trial court did not
    take issue with the Special Master’s credibility, finding her
    testimony to be “professional and dignified,” it ultimately
    concluded that her testimony was “not persuasive” and not
    “sufficient to justify a change in the custody arrangement.”
    Essentially, the trial court did not interpret the tenor of the phone
    4. (...continued)
    factors, the trial court is free to reject specific opinions or
    recommendations of the Evaluator, where it can articulate a
    reasonable basis for doing so, and to weigh the Evaluator’s
    recommendations in the context of all the other evidence before the
    court.
    5. Although both the Special Master and her assistant testified,
    their testimony covered essentially the same subject matter.
    Therefore, while our analysis applies equally to the court’s
    evaluation of the assistant’s testimony, we discuss only the trial
    court’s evaluation of the Special Master’s testimony for simplicity.
    6. The trial court’s decision does not refer to this testimony
    regarding Mother’s noncompliance with the orders of the Special
    Master, but it seems to us that this testimony may have been
    unduly disregarded in the trial court’s evaluation of Mother’s
    willingness to facilitate visitation between Father and Child. See
    infra ¶¶ 31–33.
    20120545‐CA                      12               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    calls the way the Special Master and the Evaluator did and did not
    consider the calls to demonstrate inappropriate or overly fearful
    behavior on Mother’s part. We do not think the trial court exceeded
    its discretion by interpreting the phone calls differently from the
    Special Master and considering them accordingly. However, we are
    concerned with the fact that the court dismissed the Special
    Master’s concerns as a threshold matter without evaluating those
    concerns in the context of the best interests factors. While the
    content of the phone calls alone may not have been sufficient to
    justify a change in custody, it was relevant, in conjunction with the
    other evidence presented in this case, to the court’s overall best
    interests determination and should have been analyzed
    accordingly.
    II. Best Interests
    ¶21 Father next contends that the trial court abused its discretion
    in determining that it was in Child’s best interests for Mother to be
    awarded custody because its analysis of the best interests factors
    focused on whether “Mother is an acceptable parent” rather than
    whether “Mother is more acceptable than Father, in light of all the
    facts and circumstances of the case.” We agree.
    ¶22 “[T]he best interests of the child must be a primary focus
    when analyzing a request for a permanent change of custody in an
    unlitigated decree.” Taylor v. Elison, 
    2011 UT App 272
    , ¶ 10, 
    263 P.3d 448
    ; see also Elmer v. Elmer, 
    776 P.2d 599
    , 603–04 (Utah 1989)
    (identifying “the overall best interests of the child” as the “ultimate
    objective” of the trial court in considering a petition to modify
    custody). A child’s best interests must be determined “by a
    preponderance of the evidence,” see Utah Code Ann. § 30‐3‐10.2(3)
    (LexisNexis 2007), based on a number of factors that compare “the
    parenting skills, character, and abilities of both parents in light of
    a realistic and objective appraisal of the needs of a child,” Elmer,
    776 P.2d at 603. See generally Utah Code Ann. § 30‐3‐10(1)(a)
    (LexisNexis Supp. 2012); id. § 30‐3‐10.2(2) (2007); Utah R. Jud.
    Admin. 4‐903.
    20120545‐CA                       13                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    ¶23 The best interests determination affords no special
    presumption in favor of the status quo except to the extent that “a
    child’s interest in the stability of his or her present environment”
    may be considered as “one of numerous factors” impacting the
    child’s best interests. Hogge v. Hogge, 
    649 P.2d 51
    , 55 (Utah 1982); see
    also Utah Code Ann. § 30‐3‐10.4(2)(c) (LexisNexis Supp. 2012)
    (directing courts to “give substantial weight to the existing . . .
    custody order when the child is thriving, happy, and well‐
    adjusted”). Accordingly, a change in custody based on best
    interests does not require a determination that the custodial parent
    has been somehow derelict, but only that, weighing all of the
    circumstances, a change in custody will be “better” for the child.7
    Hogge, 649 P.2d at 55.
    ¶24 The Evaluator found the majority of the custody factors to
    weigh in favor of Father. He opined that the facts compellingly
    demonstrated that it was in Child’s best interests that Father be
    granted sole physical and legal custody, stating, “[T]his
    recommendation is not a ‘close call.’” Nevertheless, the trial court
    disagreed with the Evaluator and found that the majority of the
    factors weighed in Mother’s favor. Its analysis of the best interests
    factors, on the whole, focused much more on Mother’s ability as a
    parent than it did on the relative abilities of Mother and Father or
    on Child’s needs. Furthermore, the trial court’s disregard of the
    Evaluator’s conclusions regarding these factors is explained only
    by its general assertion that the Evaluator’s entire testimony was
    not credible, which we have determined to be erroneous. See supra
    ¶ 19 & note 4. On appeal, Father specifically challenges the trial
    court’s assessment of factors relating to the parents’ abusive
    behavior, the parents’ emotional stability, Child’s bond with his
    7. This is tempered by the threshold material change of
    circumstances requirement, which prevents “‘ping‐pong’ custody
    awards” once custody has been adjudicated. Taylor v. Elison, 
    2011 UT App 272
    , ¶ 13, 
    263 P.3d 448
    .
    20120545‐CA                       14                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    brother, the parents’ bond with Child, and the parents’ willingness
    to facilitate Child’s relationship with the other parent.
    A. Evidence of Abuse
    ¶25 The Commissioner found that Mother had abused Child by
    making multiple unfounded abuse allegations to the police and
    DCFS and by subjecting Child to unnecessary interviews and
    forensic examinations, and the Evaluator opined that “additional
    records . . . provide support for [the Commissioner’s] finding.”
    After examining the various abuse reports Mother made and the
    incidents where Child had been interviewed or examined, the trial
    court disagreed with the Commissioner’s conclusions. On the
    whole, the trial court found that each report was a reasonable
    response either to something Child had told Mother or to physical
    evidence indicating abuse and that she was, in fact, legally
    obligated to report Child’s disclosures of potential sexual abuse. It
    further found that the interviews and examinations were made in
    response to the recommendations of law enforcement and other
    professionals. Accordingly, the trial court determined that the
    preponderance of the evidence did not demonstrate that Mother’s
    many unsubstantiated reports rose to the level of severe abuse.8 Cf.
    Peterson v. Peterson, 
    818 P.2d 1305
    , 1308–09 (Utah Ct. App. 1991)
    (holding that coaching a child to falsely allege abuse may justify a
    change in custody). Although the evidence could certainly support
    the opposite conclusion, we do not think the trial court’s findings
    relating to this factor were clearly erroneous.9
    8. The trial court specifically found that Mother’s actions did not
    amount to “severe abuse.” It is unclear from this statement whether
    the trial court meant that Mother’s actions did constitute abuse, but
    just not severe abuse, or whether it actually intended to find that
    Mother had not abused Child at all.
    9. We do question the trial court’s conclusion that “[t]his factor
    does not weigh in favor of [Father].” It is unclear whether the trial
    (continued...)
    20120545‐CA                      15               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    B. Emotional Stability
    ¶26 The Evaluator found that Father was emotionally stable and
    on a positive trajectory in his life, whereas Mother battled
    depression and a personality disorder characterized by paranoia
    and difficulty maintaining personal relationships. The Therapist
    and the Special Master echoed the Evaluator’s concern that
    Mother’s paranoia had the potential to negatively impact Child.
    ¶27 The trial court found that Mother was emotionally stable as
    demonstrated by her abilities as a teacher, one longstanding
    friendship, and her efforts to provide Child with a steady daycare
    provider. The trial court made no findings regarding Father’s
    emotional stability. Nevertheless, based solely on its determination
    that Mother was emotionally stable, it concluded that this factor
    “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of [Mother].”
    ¶28 As discussed, supra ¶¶ 22–24, the best interests factors
    examine the comparative abilities of the parents. Accordingly, the
    question for the court was not whether Mother was emotionally
    stable, but whether Mother was more emotionally stable than
    Father. Thus, we are unable to see how the trial court could have
    reached the conclusion that the emotional stability factor weighed
    in Mother’s favor without making any findings regarding Father’s
    emotional stability. We are also concerned, in light of our
    discussion of the experts’ credibility, see supra ¶¶ 8–20, with the
    9. (...continued)
    court meant by this that the abuse factor weighed against Father or
    that it did not weigh in favor of either party. The trial court made
    no findings and there was no evidence suggesting that Father had
    abused Child. Thus, at most, the trial court could have found that
    this factor did not preponderate in favor of either party. However,
    if the court believed Mother had abused Child, just not severely, see
    supra note 8, then this factor would actually preponderate in favor
    of Father. In considering the totality of the factors on remand, the
    trial court should weigh this factor accordingly.
    20120545‐CA                      16               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    trial court’s complete disregard of the Evaluator’s clinical findings
    regarding Mother’s depression and personality disorder, as well as
    its failure to take into account the Therapist’s and the Special
    Master’s testimonies in analyzing this factor.
    C. Child’s Bond with His Brother
    ¶29 Father next asserts that the trial court failed to afford Child’s
    bond with his brother appropriate weight. The trial court
    determined that this relationship did “not carry significant weight
    with the court” because Child had only lived with his brother for
    approximately fifteen months during the temporary period when
    Father was granted custody by the Commissioner’s order.
    Although it is the trial court’s prerogative to weigh the best
    interests factors, it is not clear why the amount of time Child lived
    with his brother is determinative of their bond—and even if it
    were, fifteen months in the life of a five‐year‐old child is a
    significant period of time. The Evaluator opined that Child was
    strongly bonded to his brother and that his brother was a positive
    influence on him. His report also discussed clinical evidence
    regarding the importance of the bond between siblings,
    particularly those who are close in age. The trial court did not
    explain its reasons for rejecting the Evaluator’s opinion on this
    matter.
    D. Child’s Bond with His Parents
    ¶30 The trial court determined that Child was more bonded to
    Mother than to Father because he had been raised primarily by
    Mother during the early years of his life. However, as with the
    strength of Child’s bond with his brother, we fail to see how
    Child’s relative bond with each of his parents necessarily stems
    only from the amount of time he has spent with them. The
    Evaluator determined that Child “demonstrates strong bonds with
    all parenting figures” and found this factor to favor neither parent.
    Once again, the trial court failed to explain its reason for rejecting
    the Evaluator’s opinion.
    20120545‐CA                      17                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    E. Interference with Visitation
    ¶31 The trial court did not consider the parents’ relative
    willingness to facilitate contact and a positive relationship between
    the child and the other parent, despite it being a significant best
    interests factor identified by the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann.
    § 30‐3‐10(1)(a)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp. 2012); id. § 30‐3‐10.2(2)(c)
    (2007). The court did consider the evidence of Mother’s interference
    with visitation but did so in the context of a material change in
    circumstances analysis. See generally Hudema v. Carpenter, 
    1999 UT App 290
    , ¶ 22, 
    989 P.2d 491
     (outlining the two‐part inquiry trial
    courts engage in when considering a petition to modify custody).
    In that context, a parent’s serious interference with visitation may
    constitute a material change of circumstances that would permit
    the court to engage in a best interests analysis and potentially
    modify the decree. See Sigg v. Sigg, 
    905 P.2d 908
    , 913–15 (Utah Ct.
    App. 1995).
    ¶32 However, when the trial court considers a petition to modify
    an unadjudicated divorce decree, like the one in this case, it is
    unnecessary for the trial court to make a threshold determination
    of material change in circumstances. Elmer v. Elmer, 
    776 P.2d 599
    ,
    603–04 (Utah 1989). The trial court acknowledged this in its order,
    yet it elected to analyze Mother’s alleged interference with Father’s
    visitation as though it were considering the existence of a material
    change in circumstances, ultimately determining that the “issues
    and disputes about visitation” in this case did “not rise in any
    regard to the standard” for finding a material change in
    circumstances. Because the court was considering a petition to
    modify an unadjudicated divorce decree and acknowledged that
    it was not required to find a material change in circumstances, the
    court’s conclusion that Mother’s interference was not a material
    change in circumstances is irrelevant.10 However, to the extent this
    10. It is unclear to what extent the trial court’s determination that
    (continued...)
    20120545‐CA                       18               
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    conclusion may have informed the trial court’s ultimate best
    interests determination, we consider the court’s conclusion to be
    erroneous because it placed an undue burden on Father to
    demonstrate Mother’s severe interference with visitation rather
    than weighing the parents’ relative ability to facilitate visitation.
    ¶33 Interference with visitation, in the context of a best interests
    analysis, may be relevant regardless of whether such interference
    is severe enough to demonstrate a material change in
    circumstances. In weighing best interests, the trial court is directed
    to consider “which parent is most likely to act in the best interest of
    the child, including allowing the child frequent and continuing
    contact with the noncustodial parent,” Utah Code Ann. § 30‐3‐
    10(1)(a)(ii) (emphasis added), and each parent’s ability to
    “encourag[e] and accept[] a positive relationship between the child
    and the other parent, including the sharing of love, affection, and
    contact between the child and the other parent,” id. § 30‐3‐10.2(2)(c)
    (2007); see also id. § 30‐3‐10(1)(a)(iv) (Supp. 2012). Thus, unlike the
    material change in circumstances analysis, which places the burden
    on the petitioning parent to demonstrate severe interference, the
    best interests analysis puts both parents on an equal footing before
    weighing their relative willingness and ability to facilitate
    visitation. In order to determine that this factor weighs in favor of
    10. (...continued)
    Father “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a
    ‘substantial and material’ change of circumstances between
    [M]other and [C]hild has occurred” affected its ultimate decision
    to deny Father’s petition to modify. However, given that Father
    had no burden to show a material change of circumstances when
    petitioning to modify the custody provisions of an unajudicated
    divorce decree, see Elmer v. Elmer, 
    776 P.2d 599
    , 603–04 (Utah 1989),
    the trial court’s determination that a material change of
    circumstances had not occurred should not have had any impact
    on its ultimate ruling on the petition to modify, except to the extent
    that factual findings relevant to a material change of circumstances
    analysis were also relevant to the best interests analysis.
    20120545‐CA                       19                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    granting custody to one parent under a best interests analysis, the
    trial court need only determine that the parent is at least marginally
    more likely to encourage and support the other parent’s
    relationship with the child. The court does not appear to have
    considered facilitation of visitation in the best interests context,
    despite having been presented with significant evidence relating to
    this factor. Instead, it dismissed Father’s argument that he was
    more likely to facilitate visitation solely on its determination that
    Father failed to show severe interference by Mother of the degree
    necessary to show a material change in circumstances.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶34 To the extent that the trial court’s determinations regarding
    the best interests factors were premised on its erroneous
    determinations regarding the experts’ credibility, they should be
    reexamined on remand to take into account evidence that was
    discounted on that basis. Furthermore, the persuasiveness of the
    experts’ testimonies should not be considered in isolation, but in
    the context of the other experts’ observations and opinions, as well
    as any other evidence bearing on the best interests factors. Finally,
    in weighing the best interests factors, the trial court must consider
    the parties’ relative strengths so as to base its best interests
    determination not on Mother’s ability as a parent, but on the
    parties’ relative ability to serve the best interests of the Child. In
    analyzing the evidence relating to each of these factors, the trial
    court should specifically explain its reasons for rejecting relevant
    expert testimony regarding those factors.11 Accordingly, we reverse
    11. In analyzing the issues in this case, we acknowledge that the
    standard of review afforded to a trial court’s factual and credibility
    determinations is highly deferential. With this standard in mind,
    we have taken great care in this opinion not to substitute our
    judgment for that of the trial court by reweighing the evidence. See
    In re B.R., 
    2007 UT 82
    , ¶ 12, 
    171 P.3d 435
    . Accordingly, we have
    (continued...)
    20120545‐CA                      20                
    2013 UT App 147
    Woodward v. LaFranca
    and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this
    opinion.
    11. (...continued)
    rejected the trial court’s determinations only where they are
    unsupported by the evidence or by sufficient findings. To the
    extent that we take issue with the trial court’s weighing of expert
    testimony, it is primarily the trial court’s failure to adequately
    explain its rejection of the testimony, rather than the rejection of
    that testimony itself, that we find erroneous. So long as the trial
    court can articulate a reasonable basis for rejecting specific expert
    testimony, the ultimate weight afforded to that testimony is within
    the trial court’s discretion.
    20120545‐CA                      21               
    2013 UT App 147
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120545-CA

Citation Numbers: 2013 UT App 147, 305 P.3d 181, 736 Utah Adv. Rep. 24, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 145, 2013 WL 2631735

Judges: Christiansen, Davis, James, Michele, Thorne, William

Filed Date: 6/13/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024