• Home
  • About Diana Telfer
  • Family Law
    ▼
    • Collaborative Divorce
    • Mediation
    • Premarital Agreements
    • Limited Representation Services
    • Child Custody/Child Support
    • Alimony
    • Negotiated Settlements
    • Special Master
  • Wills & Trusts
  • Blog
    ▼
    • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Pay Online
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Telfer Family Law & Mediation

Salt Lake City Divorce & Mediation

phone number
801-464-4004

  • Home
  • About Diana Telfer
  • Family Law
    • Collaborative Divorce
    • Mediation
    • Premarital Agreements
    • Limited Representation Services
    • Child Custody/Child Support
    • Alimony
    • Negotiated Settlements
    • Special Master
  • Wills & Trusts
  • Blog
    • In The News
  • Contact Us
  • Pay Online

Child Custody 101

December 1, 2021 By Diana Telfer

Growing up in the 70s and early 80s, I did not know anyone whose parents were divorced. My first introduction to “child custody” disputes was from watching Kramer v. Kramer, the 1979 movie where the mom (Meryl Streep) abandons her husband and son but returns after 15 months to claim her child. The custody battle involved each parent’s lawyer viciously attacking the other parent’s character. It was traumatizing to watch. In the end, the court awarded the mom custody of the child even though she had abandoned the child and the father (Dustin Hoffman) had made dramatic changes to his life, including sacrificing his career, to care for his son.

For most of the 20th century, courts followed what has been called the “tender years” doctrine when awarding custody of children. The tender years doctrine is a legal doctrine that presumes a mother should be awarded custody of her children because young children need their mother regardless of the father’s involvement in the care of the child, the child’s bond to the father, or the child’s lack of bond with the mother. Luckily, the courts have evolved beyond the tender years doctrine and now determine custody based on the best interests of a child. But what does that mean?

Often, I hear clients during an initial consult explain that they need “sole custody” of their children because he or she has stayed home with the children or that he or she needs “joint custody” because that is the fair approach. But when asked what they mean by that, the clients do not fully understand. Most clients believe it just means where the children live.

Child custody involves two components. The first is legal custody, which involves decision making authority. It is the right of a parent to be involved in making long-term decisions about their child. The second is physical custody or where a child will reside.

Legal Custody

In Utah, there is a presumption that it is in the child’s best interests that both parents should be involved in all major decisions related to that child’s welfare. This typically involves decisions relating to medical issues, education, and religious upbringing. There are certain circumstances where joint legal custody (or joint decision making) may not work such as in a relationship where there has been domestic violence or where the parties live far apart. But generally it is expected that when an issue arises, each parent should be notified of an issue, talk through the options, and then arrive at a mutual agreement on how to address the issue. Most issues can be resolved this way but what happens if that is not possible? There are different approaches to resolving a disagreement including (i) giving one parent the right to make the final decision only after a discussion has occurred; (ii) attending mediation; (iii) giving a parent the right to make the final decision only after mediation is attempted; (iv) hiring a special master (usually an attorney) to make the decision; or (iv) giving neither party the right to make a final decision and requiring the issue be brought to the court if no agreement can be reached.

Physical Custody and Parent-Time

There is no such legal presumption relative to physical custody. Instead, the court looks at various factors when determining where the child should live. There are 17 specific factors that are to be considered including such things as (i) a parent’s demonstrated understanding and ability to meet the needs of the child including physical, emotional, education, medical and any special needs; (ii) the parent’s ability and willingness to co-parent including the ability to appropriately communicate with the other parent, the ability to encourage the sharing of love and affection, and willingness to allow frequent contact between the child and the other parent; (iii) who has been the primary caretaker of the child; (iv) the parent’s financial responsibility; (iv) the relative benefit of keeping siblings together; and. (v) the relative strength of the child’s bond with the parent. The non-exhaustive list of custody factors can be found here.

“Sole physical custody” means when one parent has less than 111 overnights with the children. The traditional parent-time schedule when one parent is designated the primary custodian includes a midweek visit from the time school is dismissed until 8:30 p.m., alternating weekends from Friday afternoon until Sunday evening, four consecutive weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. Often, attorneys refer to this schedule the “30-3-35” schedule because the schedule is described in Utah Code Section 30-3-35.

“Joint physical custody” means when each parent has the children at least 30% of the overnights each year. There are a variety of joint custody arrangements. Several years ago, the Utah legislature enacted an alternative schedule where one parent’s midweek parent-time is overnight, the alternating weekend is from Friday after school dismisses until Monday morning when school resumes, four consecutive weeks in summer, and alternating holiday schedule where the children are returned when school resumes. This schedule gives one parent 145 overnights and the other parent 220 overnights. In other words, this is a 40/60 division of parent-time. This schedule is often referred to as the “30-3-35.1” schedule since it is described in Utah Code Section 30-3-35.1.

As of May 5, 2021, there is now an additional alternative schedule that a court may award that has the children spend equal time with each parent. This schedule can be found in Utah Code Section 30-3-35.2 and identifies specific factors that a court may consider when awarding a 50/50 custody arrangement. A court may award equal parent-time if the court finds that it is in the child’s best interest, each parent has been actively involved in the child’s life, and each parent can effectively facilitate the equal parent-time schedule. There are specific factors that the court is to consider when determining whether a parent has been actively involved in the child’s life including each parent’s demonstrated responsibility in caring for the child, each parent’s involvement in child care, each parent’s presence or volunteer efforts in the child’s school and at extracurricular activities, each parent’s assistance with the child’s homework, and each parent’s involvement in preparation of meals, bath time, and bedtime. Some of the more common 50/50 custody schedules include (i) a “2/2/5/5 schedule” where the children reside with one parent every Monday through Wednesday morning, the other parent from Wednesday through Friday morning and alternating weekends from Friday through Sunday morning; (ii) “week on/week off” where the children reside with each parent for a week and exchange at a designated time such as on Friday or Sunday evening; or (iv) a “4/3/3/4 schedule” where one week the children reside with parent A for 4 days and reside with parent B for 3 days and the next week the children reside with parent A for 3 days and with parent B for 4 days.

In summary, custody means much more than where a child resides. It involves how much each parent will be involved in all aspects of a child’s life. Parents are also not restricted to the statutorily defined schedules. Parents can decide any schedule that works for their family. If the parents can agree, a court will adopt their schedule. It is the extremely rare case that a judge will reject the parents’ mutually agreed upon schedule. However, if the parents cannot decide then the court is more restricted and will likely adopt one of the schedules mentioned above.

Filed Under: Blog

Primary Sidebar

"*" indicates required fields

Let’s Connect
801-464-4004
Preferred Method of Contact

From The Blog

You’ve Decided To Leave Now What

You survived the holidays. The kids are back in school.  The end-of-year crunch at work is over. Life should feel good, but it doesn’t. You know you aren’t happy in your relationship. You’ve grown apart from your spouse. You’ve tried marriage counseling, but things have not gotten better. You know the relationship died several years ago but you […]

Testimonials

I was in an extremely high conflict divorce and custody battle that dragged on for 18 months. Diana was amazing to work with and I never could have settled this difficult situation without her expertise. Diana walked me through the entire process. Along the way she would tell me what my options were and give me all the information I would need to make difficult decisions. She always had my best interest and the best interest of my kids in mind. She had a lot of empathy for what I was going through and tried to remedy things as best she could. I felt like Diana had a lot of integrity and I could trust her. She was extremely knowledgeable and always prepared. She worked very professionally with a custody evaluator, Guardian ad Litem, various mediators, Commissioner, Judge, and a very difficult opposing counsel. She has a great reputation in her professional community, as evidenced by her rapport with the other professionals involved in my case. Diana was easily available by phone or email and often consulted with me during stressful situations in the evenings or on weekends. She was straight forward about timelines, cost, and what would be next in the process. Though the experience with my divorce was not something I would ever recommend or wish to go through again, I would whole-heartedly recommend Diana as the strong and competent attorney to get you through it.

Footer

Telfer Family Law & Mediation
2150 South 1300 East #500
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
801-464-4004

Copyright © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Web Design by The Crouch Group | Log in