Utah Court of Appeals
What standard applies when modifying parent-time versus custody orders? Jones v. Jones Explained
Summary
Father appealed the district court’s order allowing Mother to exercise standard parent-time with their children in Moab rather than under the long-distance provisions after Mother moved from Monroe back to Moab. The original decree provided that Mother could have standard parent-time if the parties lived within reasonable distance of each other.
Analysis
A recent Utah Court of Appeals decision clarifies an important distinction for family law practitioners: courts apply different standards when modifying parent-time arrangements versus custody orders. In Jones v. Jones, the court addressed whether a district court must require the same level of changed circumstances for both types of modifications.
Background and Facts
Father and Mother divorced with Father receiving physical custody of their three children. The supplemental decree provided that Mother would receive standard parent-time under Utah Code § 30-3-35 if the parties lived within reasonable distance of each other. When Father moved from St. George to Monroe, reducing the distance from 339 to 186 miles, Mother sought standard parent-time while living in Moab rather than the long-distance provisions of § 30-3-37.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court erred by not requiring evidence of a substantial and material change in circumstances before modifying the parent-time arrangement. Father argued that such a showing was necessary for any modification of the divorce decree.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals distinguished between custody and parent-time modifications, holding that “a lesser showing may be required when the change sought is not a change of custody.” The court relied on Becker v. Becker and Haslam v. Haslam to establish that material change requirements vary with the type of modification sought. For parent-time modifications, courts need not require the same substantial and material showing required for custody changes.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling post-decree modifications. When seeking parent-time modifications, attorneys can argue for a more flexible standard than the rigid requirements governing custody changes. The court emphasized that trial courts have “particularly broad discretion” in ordering parent-time and will intervene only when the action “is so flagrantly unjust as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
Case Details
Case Name
Jones v. Jones
Citation
2016 UT App 94
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140618-CA
Date Decided
May 12, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court does not err when it requires a lesser showing of changed circumstances to modify parent-time arrangements compared to the substantial and material change required for custody modifications.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether the district court erred in failing to require evidence establishing a material change of circumstances; abuse of discretion for parent-time decisions
Practice Tip
When seeking to modify parent-time arrangements, practitioners should distinguish between custody modifications (requiring substantial and material change) and visitation modifications (requiring a lesser showing of changed circumstances).
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.