Bautista v. Vowels

• Docket Number: 51618
• Decision Date: 26 June 2024
• Citation: Bautista v. Vowels, 51618 (Idaho App. Jun 26, 2024)
• Parties: MIA M. BAUTISTA, fka MIA M. VOWELS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. NATHAN VOWELS, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

MIA M. BAUTISTA, fka MIA M. VOWELS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. NATHAN VOWELS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 51618

Court of Appeals of Idaho

June 26, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon Jeff P. Payne, Magistrate.

Judgment regarding modification of child custody, affirmed.

Bevis Thiry, Henson & Katz, P.A.; Philip M. Bevis, Boise, for appellant.

Cosho Humphrey, LLP; Mackenzie E. Whatcott, Boise, for respondent.

LORELLO, Judge

Nathan Vowels appeals from the judgment regarding modification of child custody. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2019, Vowels and Mia M. Bautista, fka Mia M. Vowels, divorced pursuant to a stipulated judgment and decree of divorce. The parties have three children: L.V., born in 2008; N.V., born in 2010; and M.V., born in 2010. At the time the divorce decree was entered, Vowels was living in Princeton, Idaho while Bautista and the three children lived in Moscow, Idaho. Two years after the divorce, Vowels filed a petition seeking to modify the decree's custody schedule and child support provisions. Vowels' petition asserted multiple substantial and material changes had occurred in the parties' circumstances since the divorce decree was entered in June 2019. Bautista denied Vowels' allegations and a trial on his petition was subsequently held. Following the presentation of evidence at trial, Bautista moved for a directed verdict, contending Vowels had failed to establish a substantial and material change in the parties' circumstances warranting a modification of the decree. In response, Vowels moved to amend his pleadings to conform to the evidence presented at trial pursuant to Rule 215 of the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure (I.R.F.L.P.).

The magistrate court partially granted and partially denied Bautista's motion. Specifically, the magistrate court determined that Vowels failed to prove a substantial and material change in circumstances with regard to custody. Accordingly, the magistrate court granted Bautista's motion as it pertained to child custody. However, the magistrate court found there was evidence of a substantial and material change in the parties' incomes. Accordingly, the magistrate court denied Bautista's motion as it pertained to child support. After ruling on Bautista's motion, the magistrate court denied Vowels' motion to amend his pleadings. Thereafter, the parties presented evidence relating to the modification of child support. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence presented, the magistrate court modified the decree's child support provisions. Vowels moved for permission to pursue an expedited appeal, and the motion was granted. Vowels now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a permissive appeal under I.A.R. 12.1, appellate courts review the magistrate court's decision without the benefit of a district court appellate decision. Lamont v. Lamont, 158 Idaho 353, 356, 347 P.3d 645, 648 (2015). Decisions regarding child custody are committed to the sound discretion of the magistrate court, and the magistrate court's decision may be overturned on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Id.; McGriff v. McGriff, 140 Idaho 642, 645, 99 P.3d 111, 114 (2004); Moye v. Moye, 102 Idaho 170, 171, 627 P.2d 799, 800 (1981).

When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).

Where a trial court sits as a finder of fact without a jury, the court is required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Estate of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 440, 885 P.2d 1153, 1156 (Ct. App. 1994). Our review of the trial court's decision is limited to ascertaining whether substantial, competent evidence supports the findings of fact and whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts as found. Borah v. McCandless, 147 Idaho 73, 77, 205 P.3d 1209, 1213 (2009); Cummings v. Cummings, 115 Idaho 186, 188, 765 P.2d 697, 699 (Ct. App. 1988). Thus, we defer to findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, but we freely review the trial court's conclusions of law reached by applying the law to the facts found. Staggie v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosps., 110 Idaho 349, 351, 715 P.2d 1019, 1021 (Ct. App. 1986). Where there is conflicting evidence, it is the trial court's task to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence presented. Desfosses v. Desfosses, 120 Idaho 354, 357, 815 P.2d 1094, 1097 (Ct. App. 1991). We will not set aside the trial court's factual findings as clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent, even if conflicting, evidence. Kennedy v. Schneider, 151 Idaho 440, 442, 259 P.3d 586, 588 (2011). Evidence is substantial and competent if a reasonable trier of fact would accept that evidence and rely on it to determine whether a disputed point of fact was proven. Hull v. Giesler, 156 Idaho 765, 772, 331 P.3d 507, 514 (2014); Hutchison v. Anderson, 130 Idaho 936, 940, 950 P.2d 1275, 1279 (Ct. App. 1997).

III. ANALYSIS

Vowels asserts the magistrate court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law when it partially granted Bautista's motion for a directed verdict. Vowels further contends the magistrate court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to amend his pleadings to conform to the evidence presented at trial. Finally, Vowels argues the magistrate court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law when it failed to modify the decree's custody schedule despite its opinion that a modification of custody would be in the children's best interests. In response, Bautista asserts the record demonstrates that the magistrate court: properly addressed the issues presented; did not abuse its discretion when it denied Vowels' petition to modify custody; and that the magistrate court's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Because we hold that Vowels failed to show the magistrate court erred when it denied his petition to modify custody, we need not address the arguments raised relating to Bautista's motion for directed verdict, nor Vowels' motion to amend.

A. Vowels' Petition to Modify Custody

An existing order or decree of child custody may be modified only upon a showing of a material, permanent, and substantial change in circumstances that warrants modification of custody for the best interests of the child. Searle v. Searle, 162 Idaho 839, 843, 405 P.3d 1180, 1184 (2017); Doe v. Doe (2016-17), 161 Idaho 67, 71, 383 P.3d 1237, 1241 (2016); Rogich v. Rogich, 78 Idaho 156, 161, 299 P.2d 91, 94 (1956). A party who wishes to modify a previously existing custody order must first demonstrate that a material, substantial change in the parties' circumstances has occurred since the last custody order. Searle, 162 Idaho at 843, 405 P.3d at 1184. Once a material and substantial change has been established, the trial court will then determine custody and where the children will reside using the best interests of the child standard provided in I.C. § 32-717. Searle, 162 Idaho at 843, 405 P.3d at 1184; Lamont, 158 Idaho at 359, 347 P.3d at 651. Thus, the party moving to modify custody has the burden not only of showing the material and substantial change but that, in light thereof, the best interests of the children require changing custody. Searle, 162 Idaho at 843, 405 P.3d at 1184; Chislett v. Cox, 102 Idaho 295, 298, 629 P.2d 691, 694 (1981). Whether a change is "material" or "substantial" depends on the impact the change has on the child. Doe (2016-17), 161 Idaho at 73, 383 P.3d at 1243. The changed-circumstances requirement reflects the policy favoring finality and discouraging relitigation of custody agreements. Searle, 162 Idaho at 843, 405 P.3d at 1184; Doe (2016-17), 161 Idaho at 73, 383 P.3d at 1243. That policy goal, however, is of secondary importance when compared to the best interests of the child, which is the controlling consideration in all custody proceedings. Searle, 162 Idaho at 843, 405 P.3d at 1184; Poesy v. Bunney, 98 Idaho 258, 261, 561 P.2d 400, 403 (1977).

In his petition to modify custody, Vowels alleged the following substantial and material changes in the parties' circumstances had occurred since entry of the divorce decree:

1. The minor children are now older and better able to spend extended periods of time in each household.

2. [Vowels'] work schedule has changed such that he [sic] more available to spend time with the minor children.

3. [Vowels] is no longer required to travel as frequently for work.

4. The minor children spend frequent time in the care of third persons while in [Bautista's] care, which care results [sic] increased and unnecessary childcare expenses and costs.

5. The minor children desire to spend additional time with [Vowels].

6. The custody schedule in the Judgment and Decree results in mid-week transitions for the minor children during the school year which impact the children's consistency during the school week.

7. It is believed [Bautista's] income has increased.

8. The current custody schedule is not in the best interests of the minor children.

9. [Vowels] may supplement with additional substantial and material changes in circumstance.

10. Based upon the above substantial and material changes in circumstance child custody should be modified whereby [Ba

...