Can trial courts consider a parent's financial conduct in custody decisions? Carsten v. Carsten Explained

In Carsten v. Carsten, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts may consider a parent’s financial conduct when making custody determinations, particularly when that conduct does not directly impact the children’s welfare.

Background and Facts
The divorcing parents had two autistic children requiring consistent care and structure. During divorce proceedings, the father was ordered to pay temporary family support equal to half his income from his consulting business. The trial court found that the father used “legal but unsavory accounting principles” by aggressively deducting business expenses to reduce his support payments. The court awarded the mother seventy percent physical custody, partly based on this finding that the father was “cheating the children.”

Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering the father’s accounting practices in its custody determination. The father argued this constituted improper punishment unrelated to the children’s best interests, violating established precedent that custody decisions must not reward or punish parents for conduct during marriage.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals agreed that considering the father’s accounting practices was “problematic” and “wide of the mark.” The court emphasized that all factors in custody determinations must relate to and bear on the best interests of the children. However, the court found the custody award was “readily sustainable” based on other proper findings: the mother was the primary caretaker during marriage, the autistic children needed consistency and structure, and the mother could work from home while maintaining the children’s therapeutic and educational regimes.

Practice Implications
This case reinforces that while trial courts have broad discretion in custody matters, they cannot use custody awards to punish parents for conduct unrelated to parenting abilities. Economic disputes should be resolved through support awards, property distribution, or contempt proceedings rather than custody modifications. The decision also highlights the importance of primary caretaker status and scheduling flexibility, particularly for children with special needs requiring consistent care.