What factors must be proven for enhanced parent-time under Utah Code section 30-3-35.1? LeFevre v. Mackelprang Explained

Utah’s parent-time statutes provide different schedules depending on the circumstances of each case. While the default schedule under Utah Code section 30-3-35 provides the noncustodial parent with approximately 90 overnights per year, section 30-3-35.1 offers an enhanced schedule with 145 overnights annually. However, obtaining this enhanced schedule requires meeting specific statutory prerequisites.

In LeFevre v. Mackelprang, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts must grant enhanced parent-time and how they should analyze the required statutory elements. Father sought increased parent-time after moving to Las Vegas to be closer to his child, but the trial court denied his request despite a custody evaluator’s recommendation supporting the enhancement.

Background and Facts

After the parties divorced, Mother was designated as the primary custodial parent with Father receiving standard parent-time. When Mother relocated with the child to Las Vegas, Father eventually followed and sought enhanced parent-time under section 30-3-35.1. A custody evaluator recommended the enhanced schedule, specifically noting Father’s active involvement in recent years and the benefits of increased overnight visits.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on whether Father met the four statutory prerequisites for enhanced parent-time: (1) active involvement in the child’s life, (2) effective communication or a communication plan, (3) ability to facilitate increased parent-time, and (4) that enhanced parent-time serves the child’s best interests. Additionally, the court addressed the proper standard for allocating custody evaluation costs.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found the trial court’s analysis fundamentally flawed. Regarding active involvement, the court noted that Father had been actively participating in his child’s life for thirty months prior to trial, which satisfied the statutory requirement despite his earlier lack of involvement. For the communication requirement, Father’s presentation of a structured communication plan—even if deemed inadequate by the trial court—met the statutory threshold. Most significantly, the court found the trial court erroneously concluded Father presented “no evidence” supporting the child’s best interests when he had presented expert testimony and other evidence. The court also held that cost allocation must consider the parties’ financial circumstances, not merely who requested the evaluation.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that trial courts must carefully examine the evidence for each statutory prerequisite rather than applying heightened standards not found in the statute. Parents seeking enhanced parent-time should document their active involvement, prepare detailed communication plans, and present evidence regarding the child’s best interests, including expert testimony when available. The ruling also emphasizes that custody evaluation costs must be allocated based on statutory factors, not simply on which party prevailed.