Petitioner Deborah Weaver is filing a verified petition to modify custody, parent-time, and child support regarding her three minor children with Respondent Siosifa Heimuli. She alleges that Respondent has continually refused to pay child support and comply with court orders. Additionally, the children have been exposed to domestic violence in Respondent's home. Petitioner proposes adopting her concurrently filed parenting plan and modifying child support. She requests that Respondent and his wife submit to psychological evaluations and that a guardian ad litem be appointed to represent the children's best interests. Petitioner asserts these changes are necessary to protect the children from further abuse and are in their best interests.

1. ANDREW S. RAWLINGS, #15235
WILLIAM M. FONTENOT, #11646
FONTENOT LAW, P.C.
1355 N. Main Street, Suite 8
Bountiful, Utah 84010
Telephone: (801) 312-9330
Facsimile: (801) 383-9612
AR@utahlawpro.com
WF@utahlawpro.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
DEBORAH M. WEAVER,
Petitioner,
v.
SIOSIFA HEIMULI,
Respondent.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR ORDER
MODIFYING CUSTODY, PARENT-
TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT
Case Number 154901295
Judge: Andrew H. Stone
Commissioner: Blomquist
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Deborah, by and through her attorneys of record, Andrew S.
Rawlings and William M. Fontenot of Fontenot Law, P.C., and hereby PETITIONS the Court for an
ORDER MODIFYING CUSTODY, PARENT-TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT, alleging as follows:
1. CONTROLLING ORDER: There are two orders that currently governs the custody, parent-time
and child support for the minor children. The first is the parties’ “Decree of Divorce and
Judgment,” Deborah M. Heimuli v. Siosifa Heimuli, case no. 094100064, signed by Judge
Mortensen and entered in the Fourth District Court for Utah County on May 28, 2009. The second

2. 2
controlling order is this Court’s “Order on June 18, 2015 Hearing,” Deborah M. Heimuli v. Siosifa
Heimuli, case no. 154901295. The Order was signed by district court judge Andrew H. Stone, and
entered by this Court on July 16, 2015.
2. MINOR CHILDREN: Three (3) minor children issued from the parties marriage and are the
subject of these proceedings. See Non-Public Information – Minors Form (filed with the court).
Child’s Initials Date of Birth
1. K.L.H. 04/09/2003
2. K.K.H. 10/17/2005
3. M.N.H. 10/09/2007
3. JURISDICTION: The parties’ divorce case was transferred from the Fourth District Court in
American Fork, Utah to this Court, which has continuing jurisdiction to “make subsequent changes
or new orders for the custody of the children and their support, maintenance, healthcare” and
otherwise best interests. Utah Code § 30-3-5(3). Jurisdiction and venue are proper.
4. RELATIONSHIP TO CHILDREN: Petitioner is the payee of child support and mother to the
minor children. Respondent is the payor of child support and father to the minor children.
5. OTHERS CLAIMING CUSTODY OR PARENT-TIME RIGHTS: No one other than Petitioner and
Respondent claims a right to custody or parent-time with the minor children.
6. OTHER CASES: There are no other cases –pending or closed, civil or criminal, in this Court
or in any other court, in this state or in any other state— that could affect this case.

3. 3
7. CURRENT CUSTODY, PARENT-TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT:
Divorce Decree – According to the parties’ 2009 Decree of Divorce, they were both
awarded joint legal and physical custody of the children. The children were to reside 182 nights in
Respondent’s home and 183 nights in Petitioner’s home (rotating every other week). Under the
same divorce decree, Respondent was ordered to pay to Petitioner $183.52 per month as base
support for the children.
Order on June 18, 2015 Hearing – According to the Order on June 18, 2015 Order,
Petitioner’s relocation to Surprise, Arizona was determined to be in the best interests of the parties’
children. Future parent-time was to be determined by Utah Code § 30-3-37, with 30 days’ notice
of any travel or parent-time plans.
8. PROPOSED CUSTODY, PARENT-TIME AND CHILD SUPPORT: Petitioner proposes the custody
and parent-time modifications as set forth in her proposed PARENTING PLAN, filed concurrently
with this PETITION for modifications. Petitioner proposes a reevaluation of child support and a new,
modified child support order based upon said evaluation, as deemed fair and equitable in light of
the modifications to custody and parent-time requested in her proposed PARENTING PLAN.
Petitioner also proposes the appointment of a private attorney guardian ad litem to represent the
best interests of the parties’ minor children (see MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRIVATE ATTORNEY
GUARDIAN AD LITEM, filed concurrently herewith) and also proposes that a custody evaluation be
performed to determine Respondent’s competence and ability to be a responsible co-parent.
9. MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES: Respondent has continually
refused to pay child support, refused to file a complete financial declaration, and refused to abide

4. 4
by several other terms of the parties’ divorce decree and the most recent Order on June 18, 2015
Hearing. In fact, this Court has certified Petitioner’s claim to hold Respondent in contempt of court
for these violations. Furthermore, the minor children have been exposed to multiple instances of
domestic violence, both physical and verbal, in Respondent’s home since the June 18, 2015
Hearing. Respondent is currently incapable of providing a safe and nurturing environment for the
parties’ children, and as such, his parent-time/visitation rights should be suspended until such time
that he is both capable and willing to provide the same.
10. BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN: Reevaluating and changing the current custody
and parent-time in accordance with Petitioner’s PARENTING PLAN, as well as modifying child
support, will be an improvement, and in the minor children’s best interest, because the children
have been repeatedly been exposed to habitual patterns of abuse and domestic violence in
Respondent’s home. The proposed changes provide the best way to protect and preserve the
children’s safety, health and mental stability –their best interests– and eliminate the possibility of
future exposure to such abuse and domestic violence.
11. PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS: Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondent and
his wife, Keala, to each submit to psychological evaluations to determine if they are fit for even
minimum statutory parent-time or visitation with the children.
12. PRE-FILING DISPUTE RESOLUTION: The parties have not yet used a dispute resolution
process as required by Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.4(1)(c).

5. 5
13. POST-MODIFICATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION: See proposed PARENTING PLAN, filed
concurrently herewith.
14. NO OTHER CHANGES: Other than the above-requested modifications, the remainder of the
parties’ Decree of Divorce and this Court’s Order on June 18, 2015 Hearing should remain
unchanged.
VERIFICATION
I, DEBORAH M. WEAVER, hereby certify under criminal penalty of the State of Utah and
pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-5-705, that to the best of my knowledge and memory, the
statements, assertions and allegations made in the foregoing document are true and correct; that I
have not included any nonpublic information herein; and that I made and hereby submit the
foregoing proposed parenting plan in good faith for the best interests of my children.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2015, /s/ Deborah M. Weaver
DEBORAH M. WEAVER
Petitioner & Declarant
Electronically signed on Mrs. Weaver’s
behalf and with her permission by her
attorneyof record, Andrew S. Rawlings.
DATED this 23rd day of September 2015, /s/ Andrew S. Rawlings
ANDREW S. RAWLINGS
FONTENOT LAW, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner