Can Utah courts order joint decision-making with sole custody awards? Blake v. Smith Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question about custody arrangements in Blake v. Smith, clarifying that courts cannot create hybrid arrangements that undermine the authority granted by sole custody awards.

Background and Facts

Jillyn Smith and DeJuan Blake had a relationship resulting in the birth of their son in 2009. Blake had minimal involvement in the child’s life, providing only sporadic visits and approximately $1,600 in support over the child’s lifetime. After Blake petitioned for paternity and custody in 2018, the district court awarded Smith sole physical and legal custody but also ordered a joint decision-making arrangement requiring the parties to discuss all decisions about the child, attend mediation for disputes, with Smith having “final say” only after mediation failed.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether a joint decision-making arrangement is compatible with an award of sole legal custody, and (2) whether the trial court properly calculated Blake’s income for child support purposes despite evidence of substantial unreported income.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found the custody arrangement internally inconsistent and an abuse of discretion. Relying on Hansen v. Hansen, the court explained that sole legal custody grants exclusive authority to make “the most significant decisions about a child’s life and welfare.” Joint decision-making arrangements requiring mediation and court intervention contradict this exclusive authority. The court noted that such arrangements would likely cause “ongoing issues, result in costly mediation and additional court involvement, and be detrimental to [the] child’s best interest.”

Regarding child support, the court found both mathematical errors and insufficient consideration of Blake’s actual financial capacity. Despite bank records showing deposits of over $456,000 and substantial expenditures on luxury items and investments, the trial court imputed only minimum wage income.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that sole custody awards cannot be undermined by contradictory joint decision-making provisions. Practitioners should ensure custody orders are internally consistent and avoid hybrid arrangements that effectively negate the authority granted by sole custody. When dealing with self-employed parties in child support matters, courts must thoroughly examine all financial evidence, including bank records and lifestyle indicators, rather than relying solely on reported income figures.