Can parents bind courts to custody evaluators' recommendations? R.B. v. L.B. Explained

In R.B. v. L.B., 2014 UTApp 270, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether parents can contractually bind district courts to accept custody evaluators’ recommendations without independent judicial review. The case arose from a contentious divorce where the parties agreed that Mother would retain custody until their child entered seventh grade, at which point an evaluator would assess whether transfer to Father remained in the child’s best interest.

Background and Facts

Following a highly contested divorce, the parties reached a stipulated agreement in 2009 providing that Mother would have custody until the child began seventh grade. The agreement included a provision creating a “legal presumption” favoring custody transfer to Father unless an evaluator determined otherwise. When the evaluation time arrived in 2012, Dr. Walker recommended that custody transfer to Father would serve the child’s best interest. However, the district court conducted its own evidentiary hearing and concluded that the child’s best interests required remaining with Mother.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether parents can contractually limit a district court’s statutory authority to independently determine a child’s best interest. Father argued the court was bound by the parties’ agreement to defer to the evaluator’s professional recommendation. The court also addressed whether the custody provisions violated public policy by attempting to create an automatic custody transfer.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that parents cannot stipulate away the district court’s statutory responsibility under Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10(1)(a) to ensure any custody arrangement serves the child’s best interest. Citing the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in In re E.H., the court emphasized that while parties may plan contingencies and develop evaluation mechanisms, they cannot divest courts of their statutory duty to make independent best-interest determinations. The court noted that “interests in finality rank below the child’s welfare” in custody matters.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts retain ultimate authority in custody determinations regardless of parental agreements. Practitioners should draft custody provisions acknowledging the court’s retained jurisdiction and avoid language suggesting evaluators’ recommendations are binding. The case also demonstrates the importance of preserving objections to inadequate findings through proper post-trial motions and thoroughly marshaling evidence when challenging factual findings on appeal.