holding that the view that Smoak , Henderson , and similar cases precluded using voluntary relinquishment of custody as a basis for modification under any circumstances was "misleading and overly broad," and reversing dismissal of petition for modification *759where the mother voluntarily left the child with the father for an extended period, did not fully take advantage of visitation, and the child was thriving with the father and wanted to remain in his care
How later courts described this case
- holding that the view that Smoak , Henderson , and similar cases precluded using voluntary relinquishment of custody as a basis for modification under any circumstances was "misleading and overly broad," and reversing dismissal of petition for modification *759where the mother voluntarily left the child with the father for an extended period, did not fully take advantage of visitation, and the child was thriving with the father and wanted to remain in his care
- holding that the view that Smoak, Henderson, and similar cases precluded using voluntary relinquishment of custody as a basis for modification under any circumstances was “misleading and overly broad,” and reversing dismissal of petition for modification where the mother voluntarily left the child with the father for an extended period, did not fully take advantage of visitation, and the child was thriving with the father and wanted to remain in his care
- “The requirement to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances . . . is to preclude parties to a dissolution from continually disrupting the lives of children by initiating repeated custody disputes. This burden, however, should not preclude legitimate review in the best interests of the child where there have been significant changes affecting the well being of the child, especially when the change of circumstances has occurred over a substantial period of time.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MINER, J.
dissents with opinion.
Given the informal nature of the relationship between the parties hereto and their children (one of whom will reach his majority later this year and the other of whom will celebrate her 15th birthday in April) over the past few years, I am of the view that the trial court did not err in concluding that the former husband’s petition for modification should be dismissed. Thus, I respectfully dissent.