Must Utah courts consider all statutory factors when determining joint custody? Tilleman v. Tilleman Explained

In Tilleman v. Tilleman, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the mandatory nature of statutory custody factors when joint custody arrangements are under consideration, reversing a trial court’s legal custody award for failing to apply the correct legal standard.

Background and Facts

Michael and Michal Tilleman divorced after a contentious marriage involving one child. The trial court awarded Mother sole legal custody while granting joint physical custody to both parents. The court also imputed federal minimum wage income to Mother for child support calculations and awarded her significant attorney fees. Father’s multiple reports of alleged abuse by Mother to various agencies never resulted in substantiated findings, leading the court to characterize these reports as vexatious and designed to harm Mother rather than protect the child.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue centered on whether trial courts have discretion in considering custody factors under Utah Code section 30-3-10(2) when joint custody is at stake. Father also challenged the court’s income imputation methodology and the attorney fee award under section 30-3-3.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that when joint custody is under consideration, Utah Code section 30-3-10.2(2) governs as the more specific provision. This section mandates that courts “shall consider” all custody factors in section 30-3-10(2), eliminating much of the discretion trial courts otherwise possess. The court explained that while not all factors carry equal weight, and some may be inapplicable to specific cases, courts must at least acknowledge their consideration of each statutory factor.

Regarding income imputation, the court found the trial court incorrectly reduced Mother’s imputed income from $2,500-$2,800 monthly to federal minimum wage based on speculative concerns about childcare costs and educational pursuits. The court emphasized that income imputation must be based on employment potential and probable earnings under the ten enumerated factors in Utah Code section 78B-12-203(8)(b).

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial courts cannot treat custody factor analysis as entirely discretionary when joint custody arrangements are considered. Practitioners should ensure comprehensive briefing on all statutory factors and request specific findings addressing each factor’s applicability. The ruling also clarifies that pursuing higher education does not preclude employment for income imputation purposes, and that childcare costs should be addressed through the support order rather than reducing imputed income. Finally, courts must distinguish between the two bases for attorney fee awards under section 30-3-3 and apply the appropriate legal standards to each category of fees.