placing burden on custodial parent to prove that “the move is in the child’s best interest”
How later courts described this case
- placing burden on custodial parent to prove that “the move is in the child’s best interest”
- noting that “further proceedings on remand should include hearing additional pertinent evidence that the parties may offer”
- AAfter a divorce and an initial custody determination, the determination of the child=s best interests cannot be made in a vacuum, but requires that the interests of the custodial parent also be taken into account.@
- “After a divorce and an initial custody determination, the determination of the child’s best interests cannot be made in a vacuum, but requires that the interests of the custodial parent also be taken into account.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rogers, J., concurring. I agree with and join in the reversal of the chancery court’s decision. The dissent glosses over the facts that the noncustodial parent quit his job, did not pay support at times and that the custodial parent’s desire to enter nursing school had been long standing and was interrupted by her pregnancy. The training was only of a year’s duration and was an honest attempt for this woman to place herself in a position where she could more ably support herself and her child. Additionally, the child was not of school age and more flexible, longer time periods vC^ith each parent could accomplish the same ends as prohibiting the mother from leaving the jurisdiction. She was faced with a true dilemma and like the biblical mother sacrificed herself for her child.