Can Utah courts modify custody when a parent moves out of state and interferes with visitation? Hanson v. Hanson Explained

In Hanson v. Hanson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court properly modified a custody arrangement when the custodial parent moved out of state and interfered with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.

Background and Facts

Following their divorce, Mother had been the children’s primary caregiver both during the marriage and afterward. Mother subsequently moved from Utah to Louisiana with the children—a move not contemplated in the original custody agreement. The trial court found that Mother had materially interfered with Father’s visitation in multiple ways, including refusing to pay required travel costs, making children feel guilty about visiting Father, eavesdropping on conversations, and using distance to diminish the children’s relationship with Father.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court properly determined that modifying custody was in the children’s best interests, despite Mother’s long-term status as primary caregiver. Mother argued that continuity of placement should take precedence, while Father contended that Mother’s interference with visitation justified the modification.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed, distinguishing this case from Larson v. Larson, where no visitation interference occurred. The court emphasized that interference with visitation constitutes a compelling circumstance that can outweigh the primary caregiver factor. Following Sigg v. Sigg, the court concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to “arrange custody in a way that fosters a relationship with both parents.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that while continuity of placement is critically important, it must yield when necessary to preserve parent-child relationships. Practitioners should document specific instances of visitation interference and demonstrate how proposed custody arrangements will facilitate meaningful relationships with both parents. The dissent’s emphasis on alternative remedies like contempt proceedings also highlights the importance of exploring less drastic measures before seeking custody modification.