Can constitutional arguments save an unpreserved family law appeal? Wolferts v. Wolferts Explained

In Wolferts v. Wolferts, the Utah Court of Appeals reaffirmed that preservation requirements apply with full force to family law appeals, even when constitutional rights are at stake. The case serves as a cautionary tale for practitioners about the consequences of failing to preserve arguments below.

Background and Facts

The case arose from contentious divorce proceedings where Mother had primary custody of three minor children. After Mother failed to comply with various court orders including therapy requirements, custody evaluations, and payments to a special master, the Guardian ad Litem sought contempt sanctions. The commissioner recommended striking Mother’s pleadings and entering a default against her. Following a best interests hearing, the district court transferred custody to Father and awarded him attorney fees.

Key Legal Issues

Mother raised three primary challenges on appeal: (1) the district court erred in punishing her for contempt of court without conducting an evidentiary hearing; (2) the court abused its discretion by striking her pleadings as a contempt sanction; and (3) the court violated her constitutional due process rights by limiting her participation in the best interests hearing.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals systematically rejected each argument based on preservation requirements. For the contempt proceeding challenge, the court found Mother failed to establish plain error because she never requested to testify or call witnesses at the contempt hearing. Regarding the striking of pleadings, Mother conceded she failed to preserve these issues below and improperly raised exceptions to preservation only in her reply brief. Most significantly, the court held that Mother’s constitutional arguments were unpreserved because she never specifically raised constitutional claims with supporting legal authority in the district court.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores that preservation rules apply equally to constitutional questions in family law cases. Practitioners cannot rely on the fundamental nature of constitutional rights to excuse inadequate preservation. The court’s analysis demonstrates that even when custody of children is at stake, appellate courts will not address unpreserved arguments. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of proper briefing—the court declined to address Mother’s insufficient notice arguments due to inadequate analysis and failure to cite specific record portions.