Utah Supreme Court
Can child support be redirected to a homeless shelter where the child resides? Hansen v. Hansen Explained
Summary
Steven Hansen sought to redirect child support payments from his ex-wife Kay to a homeless shelter where their daughter resided. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the shelter was not the child’s physical custodian and that Kay remained liable for the child’s support including school fees, clothing, and medical expenses.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Hansen v. Hansen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed an important question about when child support payments can be redirected under Utah Code section 78B-12-108. The case involved a father’s attempt to redirect child support from his ex-wife to a homeless shelter where their daughter was living.
Background and Facts
Steven and Kay Hansen divorced in Iowa in 1998, with Kay receiving sole physical custody of their daughter and Steven ordered to pay monthly child support. Their daughter later left Kay’s home and eventually resided at a private homeless shelter called Volunteers of America Utah Transition Home (VOA). Steven filed a petition to redirect his child support payments from Kay to VOA, arguing that since VOA provided for the child’s daily needs, the support should follow the child under Utah Code section 78B-12-108(1).
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-12-108 requires redirection of child support payments when a child resides with an entity that provides shelter and sustenance but has not acquired legal physical custody. The court had to interpret the relationship between subsection (1), which states that support “shall follow the child,” and subsection (2), which allows redirection only “when physical custody changes” to specific types of custodians.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that physical custody requires more than mere provision of shelter and sustenance. The court emphasized that physical custody involves “care and supervision” and encompasses legal rights and responsibilities to supervise and control a child. The court rejected Steven’s broad interpretation of subsection (1), noting that such an approach would create logistical chaos and “inject doubt and mischief into a legal regime where certainty and forthrightness are paramount.”
The court explained that changes in physical custody must be accomplished through specific statutory procedures and cannot occur simply because a child chooses to reside elsewhere. VOA never sought to become the child’s physical custodian and was legally ineligible to do so. Kay remained the child’s physical custodian because she continued to provide care including buying clothes, paying school fees, and handling medical appointments.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that child support redirection under Utah Code section 78B-12-108 requires an actual change in legal physical custody, not merely a change in where the child resides. Practitioners should ensure that any motion for redirection is supported by evidence that the proposed new custodian has acquired legal custody through proper statutory procedures and has the authority to supervise and control the child. The decision reinforces the importance of stability and continuity in child custody arrangements.
Case Details
Case Name
Hansen v. Hansen
Citation
2012 UT 9
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20090556
Date Decided
February 3, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Child support may be redirected only to a person who acquires physical custody of the child under the law, which requires more than mere provision of shelter and sustenance and must involve legal rights and responsibilities of supervision and control.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for statutory interpretation questions
Practice Tip
When seeking redirection of child support under Utah Code section 78B-12-108, ensure that any proposed new custodian has acquired physical custody through proper statutory procedures and has legal authority to supervise and control the child.
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.