Can Utah courts modify parent-time without finding substantial changes for custody? Erickson v. Erickson Explained

In Erickson v. Erickson, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important distinction in family law: courts may modify parent-time arrangements based on a lesser showing of changed circumstances than what is required for custody modifications.

Background and Facts

Following their 2013 divorce decree, Kit Richard Erickson (Father) petitioned to modify custody and child support arrangements with his ex-wife Shandi Erickson (Mother). The parties had four minor children residing primarily with Mother, with Father receiving statutory parent-time. Father alleged Mother had higher earning potential and sought custody modification, while Mother counter-petitioned for parent-time and child support modifications. Discovery disputes arose when Father failed to adequately respond to Mother’s discovery requests over thirteen months.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a court can modify parent-time schedules while simultaneously finding no substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant custody modification. Father argued this was contradictory, claiming that if circumstances changed enough to modify parent-time, they must be sufficient for custody changes. Additional issues included discovery sanctions, expert testimony admissibility, and attorney fee awards.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s reasoning, explaining that different standards apply to different types of modifications. While custody modification requires proof of “substantial and material change in circumstances,” parent-time modification requires only “some showing of a change in circumstances” that “does not rise to the same level.” Here, changes in the children’s school schedule and pick-up logistics justified parent-time adjustments without meeting the higher threshold for custody modification. The court reversed attorney fees awarded under the bad-faith statute, finding Father’s petition was not entirely meritless since the court ultimately modified child support.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for family law practitioners. When petitioning for modifications, attorneys should separately analyze and argue the different legal standards for custody versus parent-time changes. A single set of circumstances may support parent-time modifications while being insufficient for custody changes. Additionally, the decision reinforces that discovery compliance is essential, as courts will impose sanctions for bad faith discovery conduct.