Parental Dishonesty and Court-Order Noncompliance as Material Change in Custody Modifications: Stephens v. Buell

Introduction

Stephens v. Buell, decided April 30, 2025 by the Idaho Supreme Court, arises from an expedited appeal of a long-running child custody dispute between Bonita Sue Stephens (“Mother”) and Douglas Virgil Buell (“Father”). After their divorce in 2017, the magistrate court awarded Mother primary physical custody and granted joint legal custody, with detailed directives on counseling, medical providers, parenting coordination, and communication. In 2021, Father petitioned to modify that 2018 Custody Order, alleging a “substantial and material change in circumstances” due to Mother’s persistent dishonesty, refusal to comply with court-ordered therapy, and repeated unauthorized medical and dental appointments. Following an eight-day evidentiary trial, the magistrate court granted Father sole legal and physical custody. Mother appealed directly to the Idaho Supreme Court under I.A.R. 12.1–12.2.

Summary of the Judgment

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in determining that:

Mother’s pattern of dishonesty regarding her own and the children’s medical histories;
Mother’s failure to comply with the 2018 Custody Order’s counseling directive;
Mother’s repeated non-notification of Father about medical and dental visits and use of unapproved providers;
and the resulting emotional harm and destabilization of the children — together constituted a material, substantial, and permanent change in circumstances.

Applying Idaho Code § 32-717 best-interest factors, the Court agreed that only awarding Father sole legal and physical custody served the children’s welfare. The order also maintained the existing parenting coordinator, required Mother to obtain specialized counseling for her pathological dishonesty, and limited her medical decision-making unless supervised by Father.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Woods v. Woods (2018) – explained that even seemingly minor changes may have major effects on children, and that custody modifications rest in trial-court discretion;
Doe v. Doe (2010) – upheld modification where a parent’s prolonged dishonesty and obstruction justified transferring custody;
Doe I v. Doe (2016) – contrasted with Stephens: there was insufficient evidence of parental alienation to modify custody;
Kelly v. Kelly (2019) – held that courts may order psychological treatment when record supports that treatment is in the children’s best interests;
Pottenger v. Charlton (2023) – confirmed that failure to comply with a custody order can itself be a material change, even absent separate enforcement proceedings;
Standards for appellate review: Lunneborg v. My Fun Life (2018), Schneider v. Schneider (2011), and Levin v. Levin (1992) on abuse of discretion and substantial evidence.

Legal Reasoning

Idaho law permits modification of custody only upon “material, substantial and permanent” changes showing that a new arrangement better serves the child’s best interests (I.C. § 32-717). The trial court:

Identified Mother’s longstanding pattern of dishonesty—fabricating medical crises, false allegations against Father, and coaching the children to relay the lies;
Found Mother in flagrant noncompliance with the 2018 order—missing court-ordered factitious-disorder therapy for four years, unapproved medical provider visits, and repeated failure to notify Father;
Determined that this conduct caused emotional harm, conflict between the brothers, and undermined co-parenting;
Applied the statutory best-interest factors—children’s adjustment, parent–child relationships, parents’ character (dishonesty), and absence of domestic violence—to conclude Father should have sole custody;
Crafted a detailed new parenting plan, limiting Mother’s medical decision-making and maintaining supervised communication until she complied with specialized counseling.

On appeal, the Supreme Court deferred to the magistrate’s discretion, finding ample evidence of dishonesty and noncompliance, and rejecting Mother’s invitation to reweigh testimony or second-guess credibility determinations. Kelly was distinguished because the record here clearly supported therapy as benefiting the children. Pottenger reinforced that noncompliance alone may justify modification.

Impact

Stephens v. Buell clarifies that in Idaho:

Court-ordered directives—especially specific behavioral or counseling conditions—are pivotal elements of the custody framework, and failure to follow them can itself be a “material change.”
Parental dishonesty that undermines trust and stability for the children may justify transferring custody, even absent formal psychological diagnoses.
Appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or disturb credibility determinations when trial courts provide detailed findings and reasoned analysis.
Parenting coordinators’ on-the-ground decisions and factual reports carry significant weight in modification proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Material, Substantial, and Permanent Change: A legally significant shift affecting the welfare of the child enough to reconsider custody.
Factitious Disorder (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy): A mental‐health condition where a caregiver fabricates or induces illness in a child for psychological gain. Here it explained Mother’s medical‐fabrication history.
Best-Interest Factors (I.C. § 32-717): Legal checklist including parents’ wishes, children’s wishes, parent–child relationships, home/school adjustment, parental character, and domestic violence.
Abuse of Discretion: An appellate standard asking whether the trial court (1) recognized its discretionary role, (2) stayed within legal bounds, (3) applied proper legal standards, and (4) reasoned through its decision without clear factual error.

Conclusion

Stephens v. Buell reinforces that Idaho courts will enforce detailed custody orders as binding conditions of shared parenting; repeated dishonesty, unauthorized medical decisions, and defiance of court-ordered therapy can collectively constitute a material change warranting modification. The decision underscores the importance of credibility, strict adherence to custodial directives, and demonstrates that when a parent’s conduct destabilizes children, the courts will not hesitate to award sole custody to the more stable caregiver. Ultimately, this ruling will guide trial and appellate courts in assessing compliance, parental character, and the threshold for modifying custody arrangements in the best interests of Idaho’s children.