Ciesluk v. Ciesluk

113 P.3d 135 (2005)

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

Christopher (H) and W married in Nebraska in 1995. They had one child born on February 27, 1997. In September 2002, H and W amicably divorced. W is the primary residential parent for school residency and other legal residential requirements; H has parenting time on two weekends and two weekday evenings per month. H and W have joint parental responsibility and decision-making authority. W was laid off from Sprint and sought alternative employment in Colorado and in Arizona, where her father, brother, sister-in-law, and nephew reside. Sprint interviewed her for a position in Arizona. Sprint refused to extend her an offer until she committed to relocating to Arizona. W filed a motion to modify parenting time to allow her to relocate to Arizona with the child. W gave H four unscheduled visits per year with thirty days notice, one week at Christmas, two weeks during the summer, and one week at spring break. W proposed to pay half the airfare costs associated with these visits. H opposed the motion and moved for the appointment of a special advocate to determine the child's best interests. The special advocate recommended that it was in the child's best interests to stay in close proximity to both W and H. The court denied W's motion in that W had failed to show the move would enhance the child's life. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. H appealed.