## Facts

- Reed Hoskinson and Mary Elizabeth Hoskinson cohabited beginning in May 1995 and entered a ceremonial marriage on February 23, 1997.
- Their child was born on October 10, 1997.
- Reed filed for divorce on December 18, 1998, alleging irreconcilable differences and seeking primary physical custody, joint legal custody, child support, and division of community property and debts based on the 1997 marriage date.
- Elizabeth counterclaimed (as later amended) for divorce alleging extreme cruelty and adultery, sought primary physical custody, joint legal custody, child support, a disproportionate property/debt award, maintenance, and attorney fees, and also alleged the 1997 marriage date.
- On the first day of trial, Elizabeth moved to amend to allege a common-law marriage beginning May 1, 1995; the magistrate denied the motion.
- The magistrate granted a divorce on irreconcilable differences, awarded primary physical custody to Reed with joint legal custody, ordered Elizabeth to pay child support, characterized and divided property using the 1997 ceremonial marriage date, and denied Elizabeth’s requests for continuing maintenance and attorney fees.
- Post-decree, the magistrate granted Reed’s petition to modify custody and visitation, restricting Elizabeth’s time based on developments after the decree.
- The district court, acting in its appellate capacity, affirmed; Elizabeth appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the magistrate abused its discretion by awarding Reed primary physical custody under the child’s best interests standard.
2. Whether the magistrate abused its discretion by denying Elizabeth’s first-day-of-trial motion to amend to allege an earlier common-law marriage.
3. Whether the magistrate erred in characterizing and dividing property by using the ceremonial marriage date rather than an earlier alleged common-law marriage date.
4. Whether the magistrate abused its discretion by denying Elizabeth continuing maintenance, attorney fees, and claimed reimbursement related to child care.
5. Whether the magistrate abused its discretion by granting Reed’s post-decree petition to modify custody and visitation.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision affirming the magistrate on all issues.
- The Court held substantial and competent evidence supported awarding Reed primary physical custody and that the magistrate acted within its discretion under Idaho Code § 32-717.
- The Court held the magistrate did not abuse its discretion in denying the day-of-trial amendment because it was untimely and would unfairly prejudice Reed.
- The Court affirmed the property characterization and division using the February 23, 1997 marriage date.
- The Court affirmed denial of continuing maintenance, attorney fees, and claimed reimbursement.
- The Court affirmed the post-decree modification of custody and visitation as supported by evidence and consistent with the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody determinations are governed by the child’s best interests under Idaho Code § 32-717 and are reviewed for abuse of discretion; findings must be supported by substantial and competent evidence.
- A trial court may deny leave to amend pleadings, even under a liberal amendment policy, when the proposed amendment is untimely and would prejudice the opposing party or disrupt the proceedings.
- The recognized marriage date controls the temporal boundary for characterizing assets and debts as community property in dissolution proceedings.
- Orders on maintenance, attorney fees, and related financial requests in domestic relations matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affirmed when supported by the evidence and a reasoned application of governing standards.
- Post-decree custody and visitation modifications are reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be supported by evidence justifying modification consistent with the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld the magistrate’s custody and visitation rulings, including a post-decree modification, and sustained the denial of a last-minute common-law marriage amendment that would have altered property characterization; consequently, the property division and denials of additional financial relief were affirmed.


Hoskinson v. Hoskinson, 139 Idaho 448, 80 P.3d 1049 (Idaho 2003)