Appeals court hears arguments in Noyce v. Mancuso over legal custody; panel takes case under advisement

A three-justice panel of the appeals court heard oral argument Tuesday in case 24P606, Noyce v. Mancuso, an appeal over a trial court’s award of sole legal custody to the father.

Mark Papirio, counsel for appellant Maria Mancuso, told the panel that the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to evidence that the father had been suffering from depression and that his condition affected his ability to parent. “He stopped following the communication app,” Papirio said, and missed notices about the child’s behavioral-health treatment and a head injury. Papirio also highlighted testimony that the father had lower recent earnings and unstable employment and argued those facts supported a finding that the father was unsuitable as the child’s sole legal custodian.

Dwayne Noyce, the father and appellee, told the panel he has been “an active role model and participant” in the child’s life, described a steady home and schooling for the child, and disputed that depression rendered him unfit. The panel and counsel discussed findings in the trial record, including a trial-court finding (finding 101, record appendix page 59) that no clinical diagnosis had been proved and other findings describing the parties’ parenting roles.

The judges pressed both sides on specifics in the trial record. Justice Rachel Hirschfang asked whether the trial judge omitted any factor she was required to consider; Papirio said the weighing of the depression evidence and its consequences rose to the level of an abuse of discretion. Justice Gloria Tan and Justice Hirschfang questioned counsel on whether the father had been the primary caretaker during his parenting time and about the father’s knowledge of the child’s medical and mental-health providers. Counsel and the father discussed the trial court’s direction that the father reengage with the “Our Family Wizard” communication app and the judge’s warning that failure to comply might constitute a material change warranting future custody modification.

The panel closed oral argument and said it would take the case under advisement. No decision was announced from the bench.

The appeal record includes contested factual findings about the father’s mental-health history, the parties’ parenting roles, and the use of the communication app; counsel referred to specific findings in the record during argument. The appellee had not filed a brief at the appeals-court level and the panel allowed him 7½ minutes to argue in lieu of the usual time allotment for appellees.