Arnott v. Arnott

293 P.3d 440 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married in 2001 and lived together in Jackson, Wyoming until their divorce in 2010. They have two daughters, and the parties agreed that they would share joint legal custody of the children and that W would have primary physical custody, subject to H's reasonable visitation. H would have visitation every other weekend, as well as on alternating Thursdays. They also agreed to H's visitation on alternating holidays and during two two-week periods in the summer. The decree of divorce required W to provide notice if she intended to relocate. W filed a notice of intent to relocate, indicating that she intended to move with the children to Mechanicsville, Virginia on August 13, 2011. H filed a petition for modification of custody alleging that W's anticipated move constituted a material change in circumstances with respect to custody and visitation. The court issued a temporary order enjoining W from removing the children from Wyoming pending a hearing on the merits of H's petition. W moved to dismiss asserting that relocation by a custodial parent, by itself, is not a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a modification of child custody. The court denied W's motion. The district court began the custody hearing by noting that case law had established a presumption in favor of the custodial parent's right to relocate with the children. It stated that there's a strong presumption in Wyoming in favor of the right of a custodial parent to relocate with [the] children, assuming certain criteria are satisfied. The court found that H and W were exemplary parents, that the children were 'thriving' in their current environment, and that the 'arrangement here in Jackson has worked incredibly well.' The district court determined that W's motives for the relocation were legitimate, sincere, and in good faith. The court also found that W's relocation would still permit H's reasonable visitation if visitation was expanded. The court concluded that Father had not established that Mother's relocation constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to warrant consideration of a change in custody. H appealed.