Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts change custody in relocation cases without a petition to modify? Ross v. Ross Explained

2019 UT App 104
No. 20170916-CA
June 13, 2019
Reversed

Summary

Mother sought to relocate with children under joint physical custody arrangement without filing a petition to modify custody. The district court allowed relocation and changed custody to make Mother primary custodian. Father appealed, arguing a petition to modify was required for any custody change.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals in Ross v. Ross addressed a critical procedural question that frequently arises in family law practice: whether a district court may order a change of custody in favor of a relocating parent without requiring a petition to modify.

Background and Facts

Following their divorce, the parties shared joint physical custody equally. Mother subsequently filed a notice of relocation under Utah Code section 30-3-37, seeking to move to Uintah County and take the children with her, but did not file a separate petition to modify the custody arrangement. The district court ultimately allowed the relocation and changed custody to make Mother the primary physical custodian, despite Father’s argument that no custody change could be ordered without a petition to modify.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined whether Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a) and the relocation statute permit custody modifications without a petition to modify. Rule 106(a) generally requires a petition to modify divorce decrees “except as provided in Utah Code Section 30-3-37.” The question was whether this exception allowed the district court to change custody in Mother’s favor.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the relocation statute only contemplates three specific modifications without a petition: (1) parent-time arrangements when relocation is allowed, (2) transportation costs, and (3) custody changes in favor of the non-relocating party when relocation is denied but the custodial parent relocates anyway. Critically, the statute does not authorize custody changes in favor of the relocating parent without a petition to modify.

The court distinguished situations where a parent already has sole physical custody (requiring only parent-time modifications) from cases like this where joint custody exists and relocation would necessitate a fundamental change to sole custody status.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that practitioners must file both a notice of relocation and a petition to modify when seeking relocation that would change existing joint custody arrangements. The ruling protects the procedural safeguards built into custody modifications while recognizing the practical realities that relocation over 150 miles makes joint physical custody extremely difficult to maintain.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Ross v. Ross

Citation

2019 UT App 104

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20170916-CA

Date Decided

June 13, 2019

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A district court may not order a change of custody in favor of a relocating parent without a petition to modify unless the relocation statute specifically authorizes such change.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law involving interpretation of statutes and procedural rules

Practice Tip

When representing a parent seeking relocation who does not already have sole physical custody, always file a petition to modify custody simultaneously with the relocation notice.

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

    • Utah Supreme Court

    F.L. v. Court of Appeals

    July 7, 2022

    The court of appeals abused its discretion by not allowing a crime victim to intervene as a limited-purpose party to protect her privileged mental health records, as Utah Rule of Evidence 506 provides victims a proactive right to claim privilege that cannot be adequately protected through amicus status.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Christensen v. Christensen

    March 29, 2018

    A divorce decree provision requiring alimony adjustment when wife becomes eligible for Social Security does not mandate equalization until both parties actually begin receiving Social Security benefits.
    • Child Support and Alimony
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
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.