Appeals court hears challenge to sole legal custody award, panel takes case under advisement

Justice Peter Sachs, presiding for an appeals panel that included Justice Rachel Hirschfang and Justice Gloria Tan, called the first case, 24P606, Noyes v. Mancuso, and noted the appellee had not filed a brief; "when you don't file a brief, there's no obligation" and the court would allow the appellee shortened argument time.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge abused her discretion by finding the father suitable to receive sole legal custody despite evidence the father had suffered from depression, had not monitored a court-ordered communication app, and had relied at times on substitute caregivers the appellant contends were unsuitable.

Mark Papirio, attorney for appellant Maria Mancuso, told the panel the trial court gave too little weight to evidence that the father "was actively suffering from depression" and that his mental health affected the child in several ways. Papirio argued the record showed the father had stopped following the court communication app, missed notifications that the child needed behavioral-health care, and at trial "denied that that ever happened," despite testimony from the mother and a mental-health provider.

Dwayne Noyce, the father and appellee, told the panel he has been "present in [his daughter's] life since day one," described efforts to provide for her and to keep her in school, and disputed characterizations that he was unfit. Noyce said he had maintained steady employment over the years and described being the child's primary caretaker during his parenting time.

The judges focused on legal standards for review and on specific factual findings in the trial court record. Justice Sachs quoted the appellant's brief and pressed whether the trial judge's credibility determinations and factual findings—such as that no clinical diagnosis of depression had been proved—were clearly erroneous. The panel asked whether any factor required by law was omitted from the judge's consideration and whether the judge gave improper weight to particular evidence.

Counsel debated discrete factual points reflected in the trial court findings: who facilitated the child's medical and mental-health appointments, whether the father knew of a behavioral-health episode, the significance of the father's intermittent work schedule for his designation as a primary caretaker, and the father's choice of substitute caregivers (which Papirio highlighted as including an individual with mental-health issues and another who had been "cautioned for carelessness with firearms"). Counsel also discussed the Guardian ad Litem's report and the child's expressed concerns about friends and social ties.

The panel heard argument from both sides and posed multiple questions about the standard of review. After closing remarks from counsel, the panel announced it would "take it under advisement."