stating “where the factors favor neither parent, or favor the noncustodial parent, the trial court’s denial of the custodial parent’s request to move will be affirmed”
How later courts described this case
- stating “where the factors favor neither parent, or favor the noncustodial parent, the trial court’s denial of the custodial parent’s request to move will be affirmed”
- fashioning test placing “the burden of proof ... on the custodial parent to show that the removal of the child ... is consistent with the best interests of the child”
- adoptingfactors trial courts must use in determining the child’s best interests in a specific subset of custody cases after concluding that the best-interest standard “must be given more specific and instructive content in order to provide our trial courts with adequate guidance and to provide more uniform dispute resolution”
- outlining four factors court must consider in determining whether a custodial parent’s contemplated move is in a child’s best interests
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEUMANN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶57] I agree with the majority that the goal of achieving the best interests of the child in relocation cases must be given more specific and instructive content to guide trial courts and afford more uniform dispute resolution. I believe the standard articulated by the majority is an important first step in providing that content.
[¶ 58] I, however, cannot agree that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous under the vague, undifferentiated best interests standard. I would therefore remand for the trial court to reconsider the motion in light of the more specific standard articulated in the majority’s opinion.
[¶ 59] William A. Neumann