Background
Miguel Stephan Watts, proceeding pro se, filed for an annulment in October 2024. Fatoumata Sawadogo counterclaimed for divorce and sought to be named the parties’ children’s residential parent and legal custodian. After unsuccessful mediation, the domestic-relations court referred the matter to family evaluation services for a parenting-plan evaluation.
At the August 2025 trial before a magistrate, the family-evaluation report was admitted into evidence. The magistrate granted Sawadogo a divorce, denied Watts’s annulment claim, and designated Sawadogo residential parent and legal custodian, with parenting time for Watts consistent with the evaluator’s recommendations. Watts objected to the magistrate’s decision but did not subpoena the evaluator for cross-examination or file a trial transcript or affidavit of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the divorce judgment and custody allocation. It held that Watts’s claim that the trial court failed to rule on his objections was incorrect: the court overruled those objections on November 12, 2025, before journalizing the divorce decree on November 13.
The court also rejected Watts’s due-process and evidentiary challenges to the family-evaluation report. Under the local rule, a party challenging the report had to subpoena the evaluator at least 14 days before trial for cross-examination; Watts did not do so. He also did not seek release of, or move to file under seal, the underlying records. Because Watts failed to supply a transcript or affidavit supporting his factual objections, both the trial and appellate courts were required to accept the magistrate’s factual findings and presume the regularity of the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging a custody evaluator’s report must use the applicable procedure to secure the evaluator’s cross-examination.
- Objections to a magistrate’s factual findings require a transcript or, if unavailable, an affidavit of the relevant evidence.
- Without a necessary appellate transcript, the reviewing court presumes the trial court acted properly and affirms absent record-based error.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that custody litigants must preserve their evidentiary challenges in the trial court and provide a record for review. A pro se party is held to the same procedural standards as a represented litigant.
It also confirms that the destruction of records not introduced at trial did not warrant relief on appeal where the appellant had not sought access to or admission of those materials during the proceedings.