Steffa v. Steffa

• Decision Date: 19 November 2019
• Docket Number: Docket No. 46934
• Citation: Steffa v. Steffa, Docket No. 46934 (Idaho App. Nov 19, 2019)
• Parties: JENNIFER JO STEFFA, nka JENNIFER HOLT, Petitioner-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. MATTHEW J. STEFFA, Respondent-Appellant-Cross Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

JENNIFER JO STEFFA,nka JENNIFER HOLT, Petitioner-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. MATTHEW J. STEFFA, Respondent-Appellant-Cross Respondent.

Docket No. 46934

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

November 19, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Scott H. Hansen, Magistrate.

Order modifying child custody, reversed; judgment, vacated; and case remanded.

Smith Woolf Anderson & Wilkinson, PLLC; Aaron J. Woolf, Idaho Falls, for appellant.

Swafford Law Office; Trevor Castleton, Idaho Falls, for respondent.

____________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge

This expedited, permissive appeal presents a child custody dispute. Matthew J. Steffa appeals from the magistrate's judgment which modified the previous child custody plan outlined in the 2016 judgment and decree of divorce between Matthew and the minor child's (Child) mother, Jennifer Jo Steffa. Matthew argues that the magistrate erred in modifying Child's custody schedule. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order of the magistrate modifying custody and support, vacate the judgment, and remand the case to the magistrate court.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Matthew and Jennifer are the parents of one minor child. Matthew and Jennifer were divorced in July of 2016. Following separation and as pertinent to the issues on appeal, Jennifer moved from the family home in Blackfoot to Idaho Falls to live with her girlfriend/fiancé (Bonnie). At trial, Jennifer sought shared 50/50 custody of Child and testified that she would be willing to move back to Blackfoot to accomplish shared custody. In addition, Child testified that she wanted to live with Jennifer and visit Matthew on the weekends and Wednesdays. After trial, the magistrate entered the divorce decree granting Matthew primary custody of Child during the school year with Jennifer to have parenting time in week one on Thursday evenings and in week two from Friday evening to Sunday evening. The parties would split custody on a one-week rotation during the summer months. In addition, the divorce decree ordered that Jennifer pay Matthew $245 per month in child support. Jennifer filed a motion to reconsider requesting 50/50 shared physical custody. Again, Jennifer argued that she was willing to move back to Blackfoot to accomplish the shared custody arrangement. The magistrate denied the motion for reconsideration.

In September 2017, Jennifer filed a petition to modify child custody. Jennifer requested that the magistrate modify the custody order to give her primary physical custody during the school year and an even split on a one-week rotation during the summer. In the alternative, Jennifer sought shared physical custody. In addition, Jennifer requested that child support be set in accordance with the Idaho Child Support Guidelines. Matthew filed a motion to dismiss for lack of a material and substantial change in circumstances. The magistrate denied Matthew's motion and the issue proceeded to trial. After the first two days of trial, Matthew filed, among other motions, a motion to continue the final day of trial from August 15, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the magistrate held a hearing to consider Matthew's motions. At the hearing, the magistrate granted Matthew's motion to continue trial and set the final day of trial for January 30, 2019. In addition, the magistrate entered a temporary custody order requiring the parties to continue the summer custody schedule until the final day of trial. On September 5, 2019, the magistrate entered a written order reflecting its August 6 rulings.

On February 7, 2019, following the conclusion of trial, the magistrate issued an order awarding the parties shared 50/50 custody. The magistrate also ordered Matthew to pay Jennifer$847 per month in child support beginning in February 2019. Thereafter, on March 5, 2019, the magistrate entered its final judgment reflecting the child custody and support modifications. Subsequently, Matthew filed a motion for permission to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court and the motion was granted. Matthew timely appeals. In addition, Jennifer cross-appeals from the magistrate's judgment.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

This case is on a direct permissive appeal from a decision of a magistrate affecting the custody of a minor child; therefore, this Court is directly reviewing the magistrate's decision without the benefit of a district court appellate decision. Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 403, 64 P.3d 327, 329 (2003). In custody disputes, the awarding of custody of minor children rests within the discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Koester v. Koester, 99 Idaho 654, 657, 586 P.2d 1370, 1373 (1978). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower 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). When the trial court's decisions affect children, the best interest of the child is the primary consideration. Roberts, 138 Idaho at 403-04, 64 P.3d at 329-30.

"An abuse of discretion occurs when the evidence is insufficient to support a magistrate's conclusion that the interests and welfare of the children would be best served by a particular custody award or modification." Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710, 713, 170 P.3d 375, 378 (2007). When reviewing the magistrate's findings of fact, this Court "will not set aside the findings on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous such that they are not based upon substantial and competent evidence." Id. Even if the evidence is conflicting, findings of fact based on substantial evidence will not be overturned on appeal. Id.

III.ANALYSIS

Matthew argues that (1) the magistrate erred in changing the temporary custody schedule; (2) the magistrate erred in changing the permanent physical custody schedule; and (3) he isentitled to attorney fees on appeal. On cross-appeal, Jennifer argues that (1) the magistrate erred by failing to award child support retroactively to the date that Jennifer filed her petition for custody modification; and (2) she is entitled to attorney fees. We address each argument in turn.

A. Temporary Change in Custody

Matthew argues that the magistrate erred in temporarily changing the custody agreement at the August 6, 2018, hearing without a motion by either party. In response, Jennifer argues that this issue is moot. We agree that the issue is moot. This Court does not decide moot issues. Hoagland v. Ada County, 154 Idaho 900, 912, 303 P.3d 587, 599 (2013).

The temporary custody order entered on September 5, 2018, states that "the parties shall rotate custody of the minor child on a week on week off basis until trial in this matter which is scheduled for January 30, 2019." Since then, the magistrate entered its February 7, 2019, permanent custody order and its final judgment, which will effectively replace the temporary order. If Matthew objected to the temporary order, the time to appeal that issue was before the order was superseded. Because the order was superseded by the trial court's February 7, 2019, decision and the subsequent March 5, 2019, final judgment, this issue is moot. See Suter v. Biggers, 157 Idaho 542, 550-51, 337 P.3d 1271, 1279-80 (2014).

B. Change in Physical Custody

Matthew argues that the magistrate abused its discretion by changing the permanent physical custody order. Specifically, Matthew argues that the magistrate erred by (1) finding a material and substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change in Child's physical custody; (2) failing to properly consider the Idaho Code § 32-717 factors; and (3) rewarding Jennifer with physical custody despite the magistrate's finding that Jennifer was alienating Child from Matthew. First, we address whether there was a material and substantial change in circumstances that warranted modification of the custody arrangement.

This Court has long held that in order to modify an existing custody agreement there must be a material, permanent, and substantial change in circumstances that warrants modification of custody for the best interest of the child. Doe v. Doe (2016-7), 161 Idaho 67, 71, 383 P.3d 1237, 1241 (2016); Rogich v. Rogich, 78 Idaho 156, 161, 299 P.2d 91, 94 (1956). The party who wants to "'modify a previously existing custody order must first demonstrate that a material, substantial change in circumstances occurred since the earlier custody order. A court then will determine custody and where the children will reside using the best interests of thechild standard' provided in Idaho Code section 32-717." Lamont v. Lamont, 158 Idaho 353, 359, 347 P.3d 645, 651 (2015) (quoting Suter, 157 Idaho at 546, 337 P.3d at 1275). Whether a change is "material" or "substantial" depends on the impact the change has on the child. Doe (2016-7), 161 Idaho at 73, 383 P.3d at 1243.

"The movant in custody modification proceedings has the burden not only of showing the change in circumstances has occurred but that, in light thereof, the best interests of the children require shifting of custody." Chislett v. Cox, 102 Idaho 295, 298, 629 P.2d 691, 694 (1981). The changed-circumstances requirement reflects the policy favoring finality and discouraging re-litigation of custody agreements. Doe (2016-7), 161 Idaho at 73, 383 P.3d at 1243. "That policy goal, however, is of secondary importance when compared to the best interest of the child, which is the controlling consideration in all custody proceedings." Posey v. Bunney, ...