Source: https://dmckaylaw.com/tag/post-divorce/
Timestamp: 2019-08-24 11:03:57
Document Index: 368585851

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', 'art, 2015']

post-divorce Archives - Daniel W. McKay Associates, PLLC | Utah Law Firm -Mckay Law | Utah Law Firm
How Much Parent-Time Will I Be Awarded If My Ex-Spouse Receives “Sole Custody?”
When joint physical custody (i.e., when a child spends more than 30% of overnights with each parent), is considered but not determined to be a viable option in a divorce or parentage case, a Utah Court may award “sole physical custody” to a primary custodial parent (i.e., the child spends less than 30% of the overnights with the non-custodial parent). After the Court has made this decision, the Court must next decide how much parent-time (sometimes referred to as “visitation”) to award to the non-custodial parent.
Importantly, when a Utah Court awards sole physical custody to one parent, both parents will still be awarded parent time with the child(ren). The “custodial” parent will always have the option to allow as much parent-time to the non-custodial parent as the two parents might be able to agree to, but otherwise, a Decree or Order will set a minimum parent-time schedule that will be awarded.
First, we will take a look at the three most common parent-time awards that Utah Courts grant to non-custodial parents:
Parent-Time for Children under 5 Years Old (Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-35.5)
The “statutory minimum” parent-time presumed to be in the best interests of children under 5 years old gets fairly specific depending on the age of the child. For example, children under 5 months old will typically spend a minimum of only 6 hours per week with a non-custodial parent (divided into three visits, in the custodial parent’s home only), some holiday time, and no weekends. But more time is awarded the older the child gets.
Parent-Time Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-35
The “statutory minimum” parent-time which is presumed to be in the best interests of children 5 years of age or older typically allows the non-custodial parent to see the child(ren) at least: one 3-hour weekday evening per week (or a longer visit if school is not in session), every other weekend, some holiday time, some “extended parent-time” for vacations, and some virtual/telephone time.
Parent-Time Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-35.1
Since 2015, Utah Courts also have the option to award additional time to a non-custodial parent’s minimum schedule via § 30-3-35.1 (for children 5 years of age or older). It’s essentially the same parent-time mentioned under § 30-3-35, except the child(ren) will also spend the night during the one weekday evening per week, will spend the night Sundays during weekend visits (rather than returning to the custodial parent Sunday evening), and will spend extra time on holiday visits.
Although the aforementioned schedules are the most common statutory parent-time schedules that Utah courts will follow, each situation is different, and sometimes a Utah Court will award a minimum parent-time schedule more tailored to the parties’ unique situation and needs.
For example, if one of the parents has relocated 150 miles or more from the residence of the other parent, the Court will likely grant the non-custodial parent, for children 5 years old or older: half the summer, two longer holidays per year (alternating every year), and the exercise of one weekend per month.
Another example of a more personalized minimum parent-time award is found in a recent Utah Appellate Court decision, Nebeker v. Orton, 2019 UT App 23 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). In this parentage case, the trial court found that it would have been in the child’s best interest for the father and mother to share joint physical custody, except that the parents lived 100 miles away from each other. Their child was soon going to be attending full-time school, which made a joint custody time share impracticable under those circumstances, considering the distance between the parents. The trial court granted sole physical custody to one parent, which on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed was in the child’s best interests. But the trial court only awarded the non-custodial parent the statutory minimum parent-time pursuant to §§ 30-3-35 and 30-3-35.5. The Appellate Court found that when it is otherwise in the child’s best interest to have equal time with each parent, the non-custodial parent should be awarded “enhanced” parent-time; Enhanced parent time might not necessarily be in accordance with § 30-3-35.1 when there’s a 100-mile distance, but perhaps via “other possible accommodations” such as “additional weekend time or more parent-time over the summer vacation, fall break, spring break, and holidays.” Nebeker at ¶ 38-39.
In any given case regarding custody and parent-time, a party is always best served when they have a knowledgeable, competent, and experienced attorney advocating for a custody arrangement that would allow the party to see their children as often as possible.-
Filed Under: Family Law, Utah Law Tagged With: attorney, child, custody, divorce, family, law, lawyer, parent, parent-time, post-divorce, time, utah
How do Utah Courts Handle the Relocation of a Parent?
If you received a child custody order by a Utah Court, resulting from either a divorce, parentage, or child welfare case, but now you (or the other parent of your child) intend to move to a new location that is more than 150 away from the residence of the other parent, you might be wondering, What steps need to be taken? How do Utah Courts handle situations where one parent moves far away?
First of all, if a parent moves less than 150 miles away from the residence of the other parent, then the relevant statute does not require notice to the other parent of the intent prior to relocating. However, after the parent moves, the existing custody and parent-time order will remain in effect, unless the parents mutually work out a different parent-time schedule, or unless a parent successfully petitions the Court to modify the custody order based on a substantial and material change of circumstance. But often when a parent moves less than 150 miles away, the parents do not find it necessary to make significant changes to their parent-time schedule and/or custody arrangement.
In a situation where a parent intends to move 150 or more miles away from the residence of the other parent, the relocating parent is required by Utah law to notify the other parent, in writing, at least 60 days prior to moving. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-37(2). Specifically, this written notice must let the other parent know about the intended relocation, and must include two additional statements: (a) that either the parent-time provisions in Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-37(5), or a schedule approved by both parties, will be followed; and (b) that neither parent will interfere with the other’s parental rights.
If a parent does not provide this 60-day advance written notice to the other parent, the parent will be considered to be in contempt of Court. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-37(15).
If a parent does indeed provide the 60-day advance written notice, then either parent has the option to request that the Court schedule a hearing to review the written notice of relocation. At such a hearing, the Court has the option to order changes to the parents’ custody and/or parent-time orders. This is a relatively new option available to Utah courts. (Prior to 2014, Utah law allowed for custody orders to be changed in a Petition to Modify setting, but not in a relocation hearing setting.)
Even though the Court has the option to change custody and/or parent-time orders at a relocation hearing, there are limitations in place. For example, a change to custody can be made only if the Court determines that the relocation is not in the best interest of the child(ren).
If the Court determines that the relocation is in the best interest of the child(ren), then although the Court cannot change the custody order, the Court can change the parent-time schedule and order the parents to share transportation costs in a certain way (usually requiring the relocating parent to bear the majority of the costs).
If a parent relocates, the parent-time schedule that is recommended, or otherwise that a Court will likely order if a hearing takes place, is found in Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-37(6-12). Essentially, it’s recommended that children (over the age of five) spend half the summer, and two longer holidays per year (alternating every year), with the noncustodial parent. The child(ren) could also spend one weekend per month with the noncustodial parent, at that parent’s option and expense.
To receive help, guidance, and/or advocacy in addressing your particular relocation situation, call Daniel W. McKay & Associates today to speak with a competent, experienced, Utah Attorney.
Filed Under: Family Law Tagged With: attorney, best interest, child, custody, divorce, family, lawyer, parent, parent-time, post-divorce, relocation, utah
If Circumstances have Significantly Changed Since my Divorce, Should my Alimony Obligation Change Too?
Many people who undergo a divorce in Utah are either ordered to receive alimony (“spousal support”), or to pay it. Usually alimony is paid for a certain number of years at a set monthly amount. Unless the decree states otherwise, a monthly alimony obligation will terminate if the receiving ex-spouse either dies or remarries. However, sometimes other types of significant changes in circumstances occur after a divorce is finalized, and an ex-spouse wonders: Should the alimony amount owed per month change?
The answer to that question is “perhaps.” A judge could order a change to the alimony obligation if significant changes in circumstances have occurred, but it will depend on a number of factors.
First, was the change in circumstances “substantial” and “material?”
Judges in Utah have considerable discretion in determining whether they view a change in circumstance as “material” and “substantial” versus minor and insubstantial. In some instances it could be retirement, and/or receiving social security benefits, or experiencing a significant, involuntary decrease of income. (See Young v. Young, 2009 UT App 3 [Utah Ct. App. 2009]; see also Earhart v. Earhart, 2015 UT App 308 [Utah Ct. App. 2015.])
The second major question is: Was the material change in circumstances “foreseeable” at the time of the divorce? Even if a judge finds that a change in circumstances is indeed material and substantial, if it was “foreseeable” at the time of the divorce, the judge may not amend the alimony obligation.
Until recently, Utah judges could determine whether a material change in circumstance was foreseeable at the time of divorce simply by determining whether the change was “contemplated in the divorce decree.” In other words, if it was mentioned in the actual text of the divorce decree, it was considered foreseeable. Otherwise, it was usually not considered foreseeable.
However, on September 5, 2018, the Utah Supreme Court decided in MacDonald v. MacDonald, 2018 UT 48 (Utah 2018) to overturn this “contemplated in the divorce decree” standard. While a change in circumstances included in the text of the divorce decree will certainly still be considered foreseeable, a change in circumstances not included in the text could also now be considered foreseeable.
With this recent case interpretation, Utah trial courts are expected to look outside of just the plain language divorce decree itself to determine foreseeability. But exactly how far should they look? The MacDonald decision considered this question and clarified that a judge should look to the data, the facts, the material that was available in the case record at the time of divorce, but no further than that.
What does all of this mean? Let’s say a significant change in circumstance occurs post-divorce, and Joe wants the alimony obligation to change but Mary does not. Mary wants to introduce information that the change of circumstance was foreseeable at the time of divorce. If her proof was included in any case material in the court records at the time of divorce, then the Court will consider it, likely find that the change was foreseeable, and not order a change of alimony. But if Mary’s proof was not a part of the original case record, then the Court would not consider that evidence to be foreseeable, and could then consider amendment of the alimony obligation.
As with any legal issue, there are always complexities and intricacies that come into play. If you have questions or are considering changes to an alimony obligation based upon a change in circumstance, it is always best to consult with a competent, experienced Utah Attorney for advice regarding your situation.
Filed Under: Family Law Tagged With: alimony, attorney, decreem amend, divorce, family, month, post-divorce, righst, spousal support, utah
Copyright 2018. All Rights reserved. daniel w. mckay & Associates, PLLC