Must Utah courts adopt increased parent-time schedules when statutory factors are met? Lay v. Lay Explained

In Lay v. Lay, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether district courts must adopt the increased parent-time schedule under Utah Code section 30-3-35.1 when a noncustodial parent demonstrates the required statutory factors. The court’s ruling provides important guidance for family law practitioners on the discretionary nature of parent-time modifications.

Background and Facts

Brandon and Corinna Lay divorced in 2008 with joint custody of their daughter. The original decree granted Brandon six out of every fourteen overnights. In 2011, the parties informally modified the schedule due to work conflicts and the child’s need for stability, reducing Brandon’s time to alternating weekends (Friday through Sunday nights). This arrangement continued for five years until both parties sought formal modification in 2015. The district court ordered the original decree schedule for summer months but reduced Brandon’s school year parent-time to Friday-Saturday nights only, eliminating Sunday nights and denying midweek parent-time.

Key Legal Issues

The appeal raised two primary issues: (1) whether the district court was required to adopt the optional increased parent-time schedule under Utah Code section 30-3-35.1 when the noncustodial parent demonstrates the statutory factors, and (2) whether the court’s findings were legally adequate to support its parent-time modifications.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed that section 30-3-35.1 is permissive, not mandatory. Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court emphasized that the statute uses “may consider” rather than “shall adopt.” The legislature’s use of “may” indicates the schedule is “authorized or permissive,” while “shall” creates mandatory requirements. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that treating the statute as merely permissive would render it superfluous, noting that it provides valuable guidance and eliminates the need for courts to independently fashion increased parent-time schedules.

However, the court agreed that the district court’s findings were inadequate. The court had found the child was “well adjusted” and “doing well” under the existing schedule that included Sunday nights, yet ordered a change to “better accommodate school attendance” without explaining why Sunday nights with the father interfered with school or why Sunday nights with the mother would be superior.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that even when noncustodial parents prove all factors under section 30-3-35.1, courts retain discretion in parent-time determinations. Practitioners should focus on demonstrating not just the statutory factors, but also why the increased schedule serves the child’s best interests. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of adequate findings—courts must provide sufficient detail to support their reasoning, particularly when departing from working arrangements. When challenging parent-time orders on appeal, attorneys should examine whether the court’s findings adequately explain the evidentiary basis for its conclusions.