Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a trial court decision denying a mother's request to relocate with her child from Oklahoma to Louisiana and changing primary physical custody to the father. The Court held that the mother established the proposed relocation was made in good faith and that the father failed to meet his burden of showing the relocation was not in the child's best interest. The judgment was reversed and remanded, including the award of attorney's fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that Mother's proposed relocation to Louisiana was not made in good faith.
- Whether, after Mother satisfied the good-faith requirement, Father proved that the proposed relocation was not in the child's best interests.
- Whether the trial court's custody modification and visitation restrictions were supported by the evidence.
- Whether the award of attorney's fees to Father should stand.
Holdings
- Mother met her burden to prove that the proposed relocation to Louisiana was made in good faith. Employment opportunities, financial considerations, proximity to family, and relationship-based reasons may constitute legitimate reasons for relocation, and pursuit of a romantic relationship does not automatically establish bad faith.
- Once the relocating parent proves good faith, the burden shifts to the nonrelocating parent to prove that the proposed relocation is not in the child's best interests. Father failed to meet that burden.
- Visitation rights alone are insufficient grounds to deny a custodial parent's relocation and change custody.
- The award of attorney's fees to Father was reversed because there was no compelling reason to award fees to either party at that time.
Key quotations
“Moreover, relocation requested on the basis of pursuit of a love interest should not automatically be deemed bad faith, as found by the trial court's statements herein.” (¶ 11)
“However, the cases uniformly hold that visitation rights alone are an insufficient basis on which to deny relocation and thereby change custody of a child.” (¶ 16)
“The case is remanded with instructions to allow Mother's proposed relocation, and to make appropriate orders regarding visitation and any other adjustments necessitated by our ruling herein.” (¶ 17)
Factual background
Mother and Father divorced in Oklahoma and had one child, with Mother designated as the child's primary physical custodian. Mother sought to relocate with the child to Louisiana after accepting federal employment there, where she also had extensive family support and intended to provide a more financially stable home. Father objected, citing the effect on visitation and seeking primary physical custody. The trial court found the relocation was motivated by Mother's romantic interest, denied the move, transferred primary physical custody to Father, sharply restricted Mother's visitation, and awarded Father attorney's fees.
Procedural history
The parties' agreed divorce decree designated Mother as the child's primary physical custodian. After Mother notified Father of her proposed relocation to Louisiana, Father objected and sought primary physical custody. Following a multi-day hearing, the district court found the relocation was not in good faith because a major motivating factor was Mother's romantic relationship, denied relocation, placed the child's residence with Father, limited Mother to two days of visitation per month, and awarded Father $4,500 in attorney's fees. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Allow Mother's proposed relocation to Louisiana and enter appropriate orders regarding visitation and any other adjustments necessitated by the relocation. The attorney's-fee award to Father is reversed.