Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts award joint legal custody without a parenting plan? Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy Explained

2009 UT App 77
No. 20080406-CA
March 19, 2009
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Summary

Wife appealed various aspects of divorce decree including joint legal custody award, parent-time, and property distribution. The parties operated a renaissance faire business together during marriage and separated in 2003.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Leslie and Sergei Trubetzkoy divorced after operating a renaissance faire business together. They had one minor child with diabetes and a mood disorder. The trial court awarded joint legal custody, parent-time to the father, and divided marital assets including the business. Wife appealed multiple aspects of the decree.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Utah courts can award joint legal custody without a parenting plan filed by either parent. Additional issues included parent-time modifications for an out-of-state parent, property distribution of a family business, and grounds for divorce.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied correctness review to statutory interpretation questions. Under Utah Code section 30-3-10.2, joint legal custody may be ordered “if one or both parents have filed a parenting plan” and it serves the child’s best interest. The court found this language unambiguous—both requirements are mandatory. Section 30-3-10.8 reinforces this by stating any party requesting joint legal custody “shall file” a parenting plan. Since neither parent filed a parenting plan, joint legal custody was unavailable regardless of best interest findings.

The court affirmed the parent-time award and property distribution. The trial court properly accommodated the father’s travel schedule and business constraints under section 30-3-33(9). The property division giving husband 56% and wife 44% of marital assets was within the court’s broad discretion, especially considering the need for a clean break between the parties.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah’s parenting plan requirement for joint legal custody is mandatory, not discretionary. Practitioners cannot rely solely on section 30-3-10(1)(b)’s directive that courts “shall, in every case, consider joint custody.” The statutory scheme read as a whole requires both a filed parenting plan and a best interest determination. Courts must award sole legal custody when no parenting plan exists, even if joint custody might otherwise serve the child’s interests.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy

Citation

2009 UT App 77

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20080406-CA

Date Decided

March 19, 2009

Outcome

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Holding

Joint legal custody cannot be awarded without a parenting plan filed by one or both parents, as required by Utah Code section 30-3-10.2.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation; abuse of discretion for custody and parent-time determinations; clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion for property distribution

Practice Tip

Always ensure a parenting plan is filed when seeking joint legal custody, as the statutory requirement is mandatory despite the court’s general duty to consider joint custody in every case.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Beagles

    June 8, 2017

    A district court does not abuse its discretion in imposing a 60-day jail term as a condition of probation when it adequately considers and weighs aggravating and mitigating factors.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Smith v. Simas

    April 10, 2014

    A trial court properly exercises its discretion to deny injunctive relief for covenant violations by applying a balancing of equities test considering the defendant’s innocence, disproportionate costs of cure, adequacy of damages, and absence of irreparable harm.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Damages
    • |
    • Injunctions and Equitable Relief
    • |
    • Property Rights
    Read More
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.