Weaver v. Weaver
| Citation | 170 Idaho 72,507 P.3d 1102 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 49072 |
| Parties | Mark Adam WEAVER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Lisa Kaye WEAVER, nka Lisa Kaye Kidman, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Banks Gaffney, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Appellant. Laurie Gaffney argued.
Smith Woolf Anderson & Wilkinson, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Respondent. Marty Anderson argued.
This is a permissive appeal of a custody determination concerning whether a magistrate court abused its discretion in awarding custody to one parent nearly every weekend. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The facts in this matter are undisputed. Lisa Weaver and Mark Weaver married on March 23, 2016.1 The parties have one minor child, A.W., born January 1, 2017. On November 25, 2020, Mark filed for divorce. Lisa responded on December 23, 2020, and filed an amended response and counterclaim on February 11, 2021.
Neither party filed for temporary orders during the case. The parties agreed between themselves to split physical custody of A.W. on a roughly 60/40 basis, with Mark having three out of every four weekends. The record indicates that Lisa also allowed Mark additional custodial time at his request.
Mark's official work schedule is Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. However, Mark's supervisor allows him flexibility to arrive at work later on Monday mornings when he is caring for A.W., so long as he makes up those hours during the week. Lisa works approximately twenty to twenty-five hours per week from home and has "complete flexibility" to tailor her hours to suit A.W.’s schedule. She anticipates that she may work up to thirty hours per week in the future.
At the time of trial, A.W. attended preschool for two hours per day, two days a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The parties expect A.W. will begin kindergarten in the fall of 2022, but have yet to decide whether A.W. will be homeschooled, attend public school, or attend private school.
Through court-ordered mediation, the parties resolved all issues relating to their divorce except for "physical custody, visitation, and child support." The magistrate court held a one-day bench trial regarding those issues on May 14, 2021.
Pertinent to this appeal, Mark requested 50/50 custody, proposing a one week on/one week off schedule with exchanges on Fridays. Under Mark's proposal, A.W. would go to daycare on weekdays while he worked. Despite the time A.W. would need to spend at daycare, Mark argued the 50/50 split would be in A.W.’s best interest because it would allow A.W. to have more time with her father and give her more "stability and structure" compared to the temporary custody arrangements the parties had been using.
Lisa, in contrast, requested custody of A.W. on weekdays as well as one weekend out of every three. She also stated, however, that she would be fine to keep the parties’ pretrial custody arrangement—with Lisa having one out of every four weekends with A.W.—if she had more weekend time with A.W. during the summer. Lisa's major concern with Mark's proposed custody arrangement was the time it would require A.W. to be in daycare when Lisa could provide care for A.W. at home.
The magistrate court issued an oral ruling at the conclusion of trial that split physical custody of A.W. between the parties on a roughly 60/40 basis. Specifically, the magistrate court gave Mark custody beginning Thursday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Lisa received custody for the rest of the time, from Sunday at 6:00 p.m. until Thursday at 6:00 p.m. Additionally, the magistrate court provided that each parent would have two, one-week uninterrupted blocks in the summer to spend with A.W. Finally, the magistrate court adopted a holiday schedule giving Mark and Lisa alternating holiday visitation over spring break, Easter, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. The magistrate court's order did not award Lisa any weekend custody aside from weekends that occurred during Lisa's one-week blocks during the summer or holidays that may fall on a weekend.
In its oral ruling, the magistrate court discussed its preference that the time A.W. spent in daycare should be minimized, while the time A.W. spent with each parent should be maximized. Further, it noted the benefits the schedule would have for A.W. as she transitioned into kindergarten, because A.W. would generally travel to school from Lisa's house. The magistrate court explained that Lisa, who was awarded the final say over where A.W. would attend school, "kind of gets to be the school parent to get [A.W.] into school, get her to school, she can go to school from the same place, and I think that'll ultimately help with [A.W.’s] stability." Finally, the magistrate court indicated that its decision did not give either Lisa or Mark exactly what they wanted but was what the magistrate court believed to be in A.W.’s best interest.
Lisa moved the magistrate court for permission to appeal its custody order directly to this Court pursuant to I.A.R. 12.1, which the magistrate court granted. Lisa timely appealed.
For a permissive appeal of a custody issue under Idaho Appellate Rule 12.1, this Court's standard of review is as follows:
[T]he Court reviews the magistrate judge's decision without the benefit of a district court appellate decision. Roberts v. Roberts , 138 Idaho 401, 403, 64 P.3d 327, 329 (2003). A trial court's child custody decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id. A trial court does not abuse its discretion as long as the court Id. When the trial court's decisions affect children, the best interests of the child is the primary consideration. Id. at 403–04, 64 P.3d at 329–30.
Lamont v. Lamont , 158 Idaho 353, 356, 347 P.3d 645, 648 (2015). A magistrate court's decision will be affirmed if supported by substantial and competent evidence, even where conflicting evidence has been presented. Boe v. Boe , 163 Idaho 922, 929, 422 P.3d 1128, 1135 (2018).
Lisa argues the magistrate court abused its discretion in two respects. First, she contends the magistrate court improperly focused on achieving an equal division of time between the parents. Second, she argues the magistrate court's order did not serve the best interest of A.W. because it created an unfair "fun parent"/ "responsible parent" dichotomy.
Mark, in response, contends that the magistrate court properly considered all the factors under Idaho Code section 32-717 and properly exercised its discretion in reaching its custody decision. Further, he argues the magistrate court did not improperly focus on equal custodial time between the parents because it awarded Lisa fifty-seven percent of the custodial time. Finally, Mark contends the magistrate court's order did not pigeonhole Lisa into being the "responsible parent" and Mark the "fun parent" because the custody award gave Lisa weekend time on holidays and during two weeks in the summer. He also asserts that the unique circumstances of Lisa's employment gave her the flexibility to spend fun or quality time with A.W. even if those days fell on a weekday.
"In Idaho, the child's best interest is of paramount importance in child custody decisions." Bartosz v. Jones , 146 Idaho 449, 454, 197 P.3d 310, 315 (2008) (citing Hoskinson v. Hoskinson , 139 Idaho 448, 455, 80 P.3d 1049, 1056 (2003) ). Idaho Code section 32-717 provides that a trial court reaching a custody decision "shall consider all relevant factors" including, but not limited to:
I.C. § 32-717(1). "The factors listed in Idaho Code section 32-717 are neither mandatory nor exclusive." Reed v. Reed , 160 Idaho 772, 777, 379 P.3d 1042, 1047 (2016). "The trial judge has wide discretion when weighing these and other relevant factors," King v. King , 137 Idaho 438, 444, 50 P.3d 453, 459 (2002) (citation omitted). Given the statute's directive that the trial court "shall consider all relevant factors," a trial court abuses its discretion if it fails to give appropriate consideration to relevant factors. Martinez (Portillo) v. Carrasco (Mendoza) , 162 Idaho 336, 345, 396 P.3d 1218, 1227 (2017) (). Pertinent here, a parent's work schedule and the necessity for third-party childcare can be relevant factors to consider in determining a custody award if they affect the well-being of a child. Silva v. Silva , 142 Idaho 900, 906, 136 P.3d 371, 377 (Ct. App. 2006).
Additionally, unless a parent is a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence, there is a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of a child. Lamont , 158 Idaho at 360, 347 P.3d at 652 (quoting Bartosz , 146 Idaho at 456, 197 P.3d at 317 ); I.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Gray
...Carla challenges the application of the burden of proof by the magistrate court. Second, she alleges that a collection of what she terms " Weaver Errors" occurred. Third, in addition to arguments made in her opening brief, Carla raises an additional due process argument in her reply brief f......
-
Gray v. Gray
...Carla challenges the application of the burden of proof by the magistrate court. Second, she alleges that a collection of what she terms "Weaver Errors" Third, in addition to arguments made in her opening brief, Carla raises an additional due process argument in her reply brief for the firs......
-
Plasse v. Reid
...court's decision will be affirmed if supported by substantial and competent evidence, even where conflicting evidence has been presented. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations (alterations in original). Decisions to admit evidence are also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v.......