What findings must Utah courts make to order supervised parent-time? John v. John Explained

In John v. John, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the statutory requirements courts must satisfy when ordering supervised parent-time in custody cases. The case provides important guidance on the adequacy of judicial findings and the preservation of appellate arguments.

Background and Facts

During divorce proceedings, the district court awarded Lucas John sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter and ordered supervised parent-time for Cassandra John. Cassandra had a documented history of drug abuse, including positive drug tests for cocaine and marijuana during the proceedings. The court found she still lacked maturity in decision-making, considered her own needs over the child’s welfare, and might not be completely emotionally stable. Notably, Cassandra had only been physically present with the child on three occasions between 2017 and 2021.

Key Legal Issues

Cassandra challenged the supervised parent-time order on two grounds. First, she argued the court failed to make the statutorily required finding under Utah Code § 30-3-34.5(1) that the child would be subject to physical or emotional harm if left unsupervised with her. Second, she contended the court failed to provide “specific goals and expectations” under subsection (5) for her to meet before unsupervised parent-time could be granted.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the district court’s findings adequate. Regarding the harm finding, the court explained that oral and written findings must be considered together when written findings are incomplete. Although the written findings stated it was “not clear whether [Cassandra] is still a danger,” the court’s oral findings that she “potentially could still be a danger” based on noncompliance with court orders satisfied the statutory requirement for evidence of current risk.

The court emphasized that the statute requires evidence of a current risk of harm, not merely past harm, but that ongoing circumstances from the past can support such a finding. The court also ruled that Cassandra’s arguments about inadequate goals and expectations were either mistaken or unpreserved for appeal.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights several important practice considerations. Courts must articulate findings supporting a present risk of harm when ordering supervised parent-time, but comprehensive oral findings can remedy inadequate written findings. Practitioners should ensure clear objections are raised at trial court level, as the Court of Appeals strictly applied preservation requirements. The case also clarifies that supervised parent-time requires evidence of current risk, though this can be based on ongoing circumstances stemming from past conduct.