finding that the record did not present clear and convincing evidence that sole custody was in the child’s best interest, and [.^stating '“[t]he clear and convincing standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested' fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its nonexistence.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the record did not present clear and convincing evidence that sole custody was in the child’s best interest, and [.^stating '“[t]he clear and convincing standard requires a party to prove the existence of a contested' fact is highly probable, or much more probable than its nonexistence.”
- explaining that clear and convincing evidence is applied in civil cases only in exceptional circumstances; those where there is either a special danger of deception, or where a particular type of claim should be disfavored for policy reasons
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KNOLL, J.,
concurring.
_JjI agree with the majority to reverse the appellate court’s award of sole custody of the minor child to Resa, but only because Resa did not ask for sole custody in her pleadings. In her answer and recon-ventional demand, Resa sought only joint custody, to be designated the domiciliary parent, and child support. She did not amend the pleadings to request sole custody. As this ground alone is sufficient to find the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s award of joint custody, it is unnecessary and constitutes dicta to discuss whether Resa proved by clear and convincing evidence that sole custody was in Cole’s best interest. Because of this unnecessary discussion in the opinion, I concur.