Utah Court of Appeals
Can courts enter temporary custody orders through orders to show cause? Montano v. Third District Court Explained
Summary
Denise Montano petitioned for a writ of prohibition to stop enforcement of a temporary custody order granting custody to her ex-husband Fred pending a custody modification hearing. The court denied the petition, finding that the temporary custody order did not violate procedural rules because it was entered in conjunction with a proper petition to modify rather than solely through an order to show cause.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In family law proceedings, the distinction between temporary and permanent custody orders carries significant procedural implications. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this distinction in Montano v. Third District Court, clarifying when courts may properly enter temporary custody orders.
Background and Facts
Denise and Fred Montano were divorced in 1991, with Denise receiving permanent custody of their daughter Bianca. In 1996, Bianca began living with Fred pursuant to an agreement between the parties. When Denise took Bianca for a visit in November 1996 and failed to return her, Fred filed both a petition to modify custody and an order to show cause seeking temporary custody. After a hearing conducted entirely through attorney proffers, the commissioner granted Fred temporary custody pending disposition of the modification petition.
Key Legal Issues
Denise challenged the temporary custody order, arguing it violated Rule 6-404(1) of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration, which prohibits raising modification requests “by way of an order to show cause.” She also raised due process concerns about the hearing procedure.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals found no rule violation because Fred’s request was properly raised through a petition to modify, not solely through the order to show cause. The court emphasized that temporary custody orders do not actually modify the decree—they remain in effect only until a fully informed custody determination can be made at final hearing. Because Denise failed to request an evidentiary hearing, the court declined to address her due process claims.
Practice Implications
While the court upheld the temporary order, it expressed serious concern about the routine practice of determining custody based solely on attorney proffers. The court emphasized that witness demeanor and credibility are critical in custody cases, making evidentiary hearings strongly preferable. Practitioners should file proper modification petitions when seeking temporary custody relief and should request evidentiary hearings rather than relying on proffers to strengthen their positions and avoid potential appellate scrutiny.
Case Details
Case Name
Montano v. Third District Court
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 970050-CA
Date Decided
March 13, 1997
Outcome
Denied
Holding
Rule 6-404(1) of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration does not preclude a district court from entering a temporary custody order pursuant to an order to show cause filed contemporaneously with a petition to modify custody.
Standard of Review
The court addressed procedural rules interpretation without stating a specific standard of review
Practice Tip
When seeking temporary custody orders, file a petition to modify contemporaneously with your order to show cause to comply with Rule 6-404(1), and request evidentiary hearings rather than relying on proffers to strengthen your position.
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
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.