What findings must Utah courts make when modifying parent time arrangements? Blocker v. Blocker Explained

In Blocker v. Blocker, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the essential requirement for adequate findings of fact when district courts modify parent time arrangements. The case provides important guidance for practitioners on the procedural requirements that courts must follow to ensure meaningful appellate review.

Background and Facts

The parties divorced in 2004 with joint custody arrangements, but Father later obtained sole legal and physical custody in 2009. The court initially required Mother’s parent time to be supervised until she complied with certain conditions, including retaining a Special Master and participating in therapy. Years later, Mother filed a motion seeking unsupervised visitation. After a procedural hearing, the district court granted Mother temporary unsupervised parent time, then made this arrangement permanent without conducting an evidentiary hearing or entering any findings of fact.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court erred by modifying parent time arrangements without making findings regarding changed circumstances or the child’s best interests. Father argued that under Hogge v. Hogge, courts must follow a two-step process requiring findings of material changes in circumstances before modifying custody or parent time arrangements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals emphasized that while modifying parent time does not require the same substantial showing as custody modifications, courts must still find some change in circumstances. The court noted that “proper findings of fact ensure that the ultimate custody award follows logically from, and is supported by, the evidence and the controlling legal principles.” Because the district court made no findings whatsoever, the appellate court could not conduct meaningful review of whether the decision was based on correct legal principles or supported by evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of obtaining adequate findings in family law proceedings. Practitioners should specifically request findings regarding changed circumstances and best interests when seeking parent time modifications. The case also demonstrates how inadequate findings can result in costly remands, emphasizing the need for thorough preparation and clear requests for specific findings at the trial court level.