What happens when trial court findings fail to support a custody award? Bartlett v. Bartlett Explained

In Bartlett v. Bartlett, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed fundamental requirements for findings of fact in child custody cases, demonstrating how inadequate findings can lead to reversal even when the underlying decision may have merit.

Background and Facts

Jeremy and Claudia Bartlett divorced in 2008, with Father initially receiving temporary custody of their two children. Following a 2012 bench trial, the court awarded primary physical custody to Mother and joint legal custody to both parents. The court described both parents as “fit and proper,” but determined the “deciding point” was Mother’s improved circumstances compared to Father’s continued dependence on his parents. However, at a subsequent review hearing, the court admonished Mother for violating the court-ordered visitation schedule and noted her pregnancy with another man’s child while unmarried.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court’s findings of fact adequately supported its custody decision. Father also raised claims regarding alleged ex parte communications between Mother and the court.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that findings of fact must include sufficient subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the court reached its ultimate conclusion. Despite being “admirably detailed,” the trial court’s findings failed this standard. The court found both parents “evenly balanced” except that Mother was “better able and equipped to support and sustain a positive relationship” between the children and Father. However, the court identified no subsidiary facts supporting this crucial finding—particularly troubling given the court’s recent admonishment of Mother for denying Father access. The court also failed to explain why it rejected recommendations from both the custody evaluator and guardian ad litem favoring Father.

Practice Implications

This case underscores the critical importance of comprehensive findings in custody cases. When trial courts deviate from expert recommendations, they must articulate specific factual bases for their decisions. Practitioners should carefully review findings to ensure they contain adequate subsidiary facts and should not hesitate to challenge inadequate findings on appeal. The decision also clarifies that ex parte communication claims require showing personal bias or prejudice, not merely improper contact.