Background
A parentage case evolved into a custody dispute after Rebecca Prestwich repeatedly denied Utah courts’ authority, filed overlapping proceedings, resisted parent-time orders, and attempted to use court process in another state. The district court found her a vexatious litigant, restricted pro se filings, transferred sole legal and physical custody to Keary Watson, and limited Prestwich to supervised parent-time.
At trial, evidence showed the child had arrived in Watson’s care with serious emotional, educational, and developmental problems but improved with therapy and stability. Prestwich did not attend trial, though counsel represented her. On appeal she challenged the vexatious-litigant determination, custody-related emergency orders, admissions, child support, and adequacy of findings.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the vexatious-litigant restrictions and related show-cause proceedings. The record of hundreds of incoherent or frivolous filings and repeated communications supported controls on further pro se submissions. The district court also had authority to grant custody relief Watson requested and did not abuse its discretion in issuing a writ of assistance, temporary restraining order, or preliminary injunction to protect the child.
Several appellate arguments failed because of the record and preservation rules. The request for admissions was absent from the appellate record, preventing meaningful review. Prestwich did not alert the district court to claimed deficiencies in income-imputation findings or custody findings, so those issues were unpreserved. A party cannot withhold participation below and obtain reversal on objections the trial court never had an opportunity to address.
Key Takeaways
- A documented pattern of abusive and frivolous filings can support Utah vexatious-litigant restrictions.
- Custody emergency orders receive deferential review when supported by evidence of likely harm and the child’s need for stability.
- Challenges to findings and child-support calculations generally must be raised in the district court and supported by an adequate appellate record.
Why It Matters
Utah family-law counsel should preserve objections to findings before appeal and ensure that every document necessary for review is included in the record. When seeking filing restrictions, counsel should document the pattern, burden, and prior warnings rather than rely on labels. The case also demonstrates how nonparticipation can undermine both the merits presentation and later appellate challenges in a high-stakes custody matter.