Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Counsel spar over whether district court properly assigned primary residential responsibility
Summary
The parties disputed whether the district court’s custody decision should be reversed; appellant argued the court erred, while appellee defended the trial judge’s reliance on a qualified custody investigator and the children’s preferences.
During oral argument in Benjamin Jones v. Melanie Jones, attorneys debated whether the district court clearly erred in its primary-residential-responsibility decision for the minor children.
Attorney Erin Conroy defended the district court’s custody findings, noting the court relied on a qualified custody investigator who testified at length and that the trial court is the factfinder best positioned to assess demeanor and credibility. Conroy said the district court’s custody decision was supported by the totality of the evidence and that appellate reversal is appropriate only for clearly erroneous findings.
Attorney Chris Rausch countered that the district court misapplied custody factors, arguing it treated episodes such as a few embarrassing incidents as evidence that should have weighed against Melanie Jones and that it applied different standards for intent to interfere when evaluating each parent. Rausch said the record contained evidence of conduct by Benjamin Jones that amounted to alienating behavior and that the children’s expressed preferences could have been shaped by that conduct.
Both sides cited precedent. Conroy reminded the court that this court has cautioned against labeling conduct ‘‘alienation’’ without qualified evidence; Rausch cited Wolf v. Wall and urged the court not to allow a parent to benefit from conduct that impeded the other parent’s relationship with the children. Counsel disputed whether the custody investigator’s findings were dispositive; both agreed the trial court could accept or reject the investigator’s recommendations but differed on whether the court’s weighing of factors met the ‘‘clearly erroneous’’ standard.
The Supreme Court took the matter under advisement at the close of argument; no ruling was announced.
Ending: Arguments focused on whether the trial court applied custody factors properly and whether the children’s preferences were a mature, independent expression or the product of parental conduct.
