Utah Court of Appeals
Can a parent raise the parental presumption for the first time on appeal? Marchand v. Marchand Explained
Summary
Mother appealed a custody award to Father, arguing the trial court failed to apply the parental presumption based on DNA evidence showing her former boyfriend was the biological father. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Mother failed to preserve the issue at trial and that Father retained statutory presumption of paternity as the husband during marriage.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Marchand v. Marchand, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a mother could challenge a custody award by raising the parental presumption for the first time on appeal, emphasizing the critical importance of issue preservation in family law proceedings.
Background and Facts
Matthew and Kristie Marchand divorced shortly after their daughter’s birth in 2001, with Kristie receiving custody. Three years later, Matthew filed for custody modification, alleging instability in the child’s environment. During this proceeding, Kristie obtained DNA evidence showing her former boyfriend Steve Burton was the biological father with 99.96% certainty. However, she never introduced this evidence at trial or argued for application of the parental presumption. The trial court awarded custody to Matthew based on the child’s best interests.
Key Legal Issues
The central issues were: (1) whether Kristie could raise the parental presumption on appeal without preserving it at trial; (2) whether the statutory presumption of paternity applied to Matthew as the husband during marriage; and (3) whether trial counsel’s failure to raise these issues constituted grounds for a new trial.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed under an abuse of discretion standard for custody determinations. The court held that Kristie failed to preserve the parental presumption argument, noting the trial court specifically asked about paternity issues and counsel indicated they would not pursue them. Additionally, Matthew retained the statutory presumption of paternity under Utah Code § 78-45g-204(1)(a) because the child was born during their marriage, and this presumption was never properly rebutted with admissible evidence.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the fundamental appellate principle that issues must be preserved at trial. Family law practitioners must be particularly vigilant about introducing DNA evidence and raising parental presumption arguments when paternity is disputed. Strategic decisions about whether to challenge paternity should be made carefully, considering both the strength of genetic evidence and potential impacts on the client’s case narrative.
Case Details
Case Name
Marchand v. Marchand
Citation
2006 UT App 429
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20051105-CA
Date Decided
October 19, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial court does not err in failing to apply the parental presumption when the issue was not properly preserved at trial and statutory presumptions of paternity remain intact.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for child custody awards and denial of motion for new trial; correctness for ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for first time on appeal
Practice Tip
Always introduce DNA evidence and raise parental presumption arguments at trial; failure to preserve these issues will likely result in waiver on appeal.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.