### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2012 W Y 167

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2012

December 28, 2012

JEFFREY R. ARNOTT,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v

.

PAULA a/k/a POLLY A. ARNOTT,

Appellee

(Plaintiff). No. S

- 12

- 0089

Appeal from the District Court o f Teton County

The Honorable Timothy C. Day , Judge

Representing Appellant:

Leah K. Corrigan and James K. Lubing, Lubing & Corrigan, LLC, Jackson,

W y o m i n g

.

Representing Appellee:

Anne B. Ashley, Anne B. Ashley, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Guardian Ad Litem:

Steven R. Dwyer, The Law Office of Steven R. Dwyer, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

B e f ore KITE, C.J., HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, JJ., and GOLDEN, J., Retired.

N O T I C E : T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f

o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n P a c i f

i c R e p o r t e r T h i r d

. R e a d e r

s

a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f

y t h e C l e r

k o f t h e S u p r

e m e C o u r

t

, S u p r e m e C o u r

t B u i l d i n g , C h e y e n n e , W y o m i n g

8 2 0 0 2

, o f a n y t y p o g r

a p h i c a l o r o t h e r f

o r m a l e r r

o r s s o t h a t c o r r

e c t i o n m a y b e m a d e b e f o r e f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n i n

t h e p e r m a n e n t v o l u m e

.1

B U R K E

, J u s t i c e

.

[ ¶ 1 ] A p p e l l a n t

, J e f f r e y A r n o t t (Father)

, c h a l l e n g

e s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s

p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ’ d i v o r c e d e c r e e

, w

h i c h g r a n t e d p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l

custody of the parties’ two daughters to Appellee, Paula (“Polly”) Arnott (Mother)

. Fath er sought modification of custody after Mother gave notice of her intention t o

relocate to Virginia with the children. Relying on this Court’s decision in Watt v. Watt

, 971 P.2d 608, 614 (Wyo. 1999) , the district court applied a “strong presumption in fav o r of the right of a custodial parent to relocate with her children ” and determined t h a t F a t h e r

had failed to e s t a b l i s h a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t i n g a n a n a l y s i s o f

whether modification would be in the best interests of the children.

[ ¶ 2 ] O n a p p e a l

, F a

t h e r c o n t e

n d s t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n i n W

a t t should be overturned. He

a s s e r t s t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t p r e c e d e n t u n d e r m i n e s h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a

l l y p r o t ected

parenting rights and the s tate’s interest in promoting the best interests of the children.

We agree and h o l d t h a

t a p p l i c a t i o n o f a p r e s u m p t i o n f a v o r i n g t h e r e l o c a t i n g c u s t o d i a l

p a r e n t s h o u l d n o t b e a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n

circumstances . To the extent that our decision in W att mandates application of such a

presumption, it is hereby over turned. Because the district court applied this p r e s u m p t i o n in determining that F a t h e r h a d f a i l e d t o m e e t h i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n

circumstances, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent wi t h t h i s opinion.

I S S U E S

[ ¶ 3 ] F a t h e r p r e s e n

t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f

o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n :

1

. Did the District Court err when it determined that this

Court’s holdings in W att and Resor foreclosed a

determination that an interstate relocation can give rise to

a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to

consider a custody modification?

2

. I n the alternative, and as a matter of first impression, did

the District Court’s application of Watt and Love v iolate

the Father’s fundamental constitutional right to rai s e h is

children?

3

. A l s o i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v

e

, t o t h e e x t e

n t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d

n o t e r r i n i t s i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n o f W

a t t

, a n d t h e W

a t t s t a n d a r

d

is retained as constitutional, did the District Court exceed

the bounds of reason in deciding that the Mother’s move2 o f 2

, 1 4 0 m

i l e s s t i l l a l l o w s f

o r r e a s o n a b l e v

i s i t a t i o n f

o r

F a t h e r ?

M o t h e r s t a

t e s t h e i s s u e s a s f

o l l o w s :

1

. W a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a n

i n t e r s t a t e relocation by the primary custodial parent,

s tanding alone, does not constitute a mat e r i a l and

s u b s t a n t i a l change in circumstances sufficient to modify

custody under Wyoming law?

2

. Did the District Court correctly determine that the

custodial parent’s motives for relocating were legitimate,

sincere and in good faith?

3

. D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m

i n e t h a t r e a s o n a b l e

v i s i t a t i o n i s s t i l l a v

a i l a b l e t o t h e n o n c

u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t a f t e r

r e l o c a t i o n ?

F A C T S

[ ¶ 4 ] The parties were married in 2001 and lived together in Jackson, Wyoming until

t h e i r d i v o r c e i n 2 0 1 0

. T h e i r f

i r s t d a u g h t e r

, A G A

, w a s b orn on June 6, 2003, and their

s e c o n d d a u g

h t e r

, A L A

, w a s b o r n o n J u n e 3 0

, 2 0 0 5

. At the time of their divorce, the

parties agreed that they would share joint legal custody of the children, and that Mother

w o u l d h a v

e p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y

, s u b j e c t t o Fat her’s reasonable visitation

. T h e

p a r t i e s a g

r e e d t o “ c o n s u l t w i t h e a c h o t h e r r e g a r d i n g m a

j o r d e c i s i o n s i n v

o l v i n g t h e

c h i l d r e n

, i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e i r e d u c a t i o n

, h e a l t h

, a n d o t h e r i s s u e s i n v

o l v i n g

the children’s welf

are.” The parties agreed tha t Father would have v i s i t a t i o n e v e r y o t h e r

weekend , as well as on alternating Thursdays. They also agreed t o F a t h e r ’ s v i s i t a t i o n o n alternating holidays and during two two

- week periods in the summer. T h e d e c r e e o f

divorce required Mother to provide notic e if she intended to relocate

.

[ ¶ 5 ] On July 8, 2011, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate, indicating that she

i n t e n d e d t o m o v e w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n t o M e c h a n i c s v i l l e

, V i r g i n i a o n A

u g u s t 1 3

, 2 0 1 1

. Ten

d a y s l a t e r

, F a t

h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y a l l e g i n g t h a t M o t h e r ’ s anticipated move c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o c u s t o d y

and visitation

. The petition also alleged that i t w a s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n f o r Father to have primary residential cus tody. O n F a t h e r ’ s m o t i o n

, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a

t e m p o r a r y o r d e r e n

j o i n i n g M o t h e r f

r o m r e m o v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m W y o m i n g p e n d i n g a hearing on t he merits of Father’s petition.

[ ¶ 6 ] M o t h e r m o v

e d t o d i s m i s s t h e petition to modify custody and visitation, asserting3

t hat under this Court’s decision in Watt

, relocation by a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t

, b y i t s e l f

, i s n o t a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify a modification of child custody.

The district court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summa r y j u d g m e n t

after Father filed an affidavit with his response to the motion

, a n d t h e c o u r t i n v i t e d t h e

parties to supplement their pleadings and provide additional evidence. A f t e r a h e a r i n g

, the court denied Mother’s motion, finding there were issues of m a t e r i a l f a c t a s t o “whether the circumstances surrounding [Mother’s] proposed move to Virginia would

c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s j u s t i f y i n g a m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ’

custody arrangement .” A hearing on Father’s petition was held in e arly November , 2011

.

[ ¶ 7 ] T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t b e g a n t h e h e a r i n g b y n o t i n g t h a t W a t t a n d i t s p r o g

e n y had

e s t a b l i s h e d a p r e s u m

p t i o n i n f

a v o r o f t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ’ s r i g h t t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e

c h i l d r e n :

W

h e t h e r y o u d i s a g

r e e w i t h i t o r w

h e t h e r y o u a g

r e e

w i t h i t a n d w

h e t h e r y o u l i k e i t o r n o t

, t h e l a w i s v e r y c l e a r i n

W y o m i n g w h e n i t c o m e s t o c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r a m a t e r i a l

a n d s u b s t a

n t i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t s s u f f i c i e n t t o

m o d i f y c u s t o d y w

h e n a c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t w i s h e s t o r e l o c a

t e

w i t h [ t h e ] c h i l d r e n

.

I t’s a high standard, the

– t h e r e ’ s a s t r o n g p r e s u m

p t i o n

i n W y o m i n g i n f

a v o r o f t h e r i g

h t o f a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t t o

relocate with [the] c h i l d r e n

, a s s u m i n g c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a a r e

satisfied.

. . .

D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g

, t h e c o u r t r e c e i v e d t e s t i m o n y f

r o m s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s

, i n c l u d i n g t h e

p a r t i e s

, t h e c h i l d r e n ’ s d u a l

- l a n g u a g e i m m e r s i o n t e a c h e r

, a n u r s e f r o m t h e i r p e d i a t r i c i a n ’ s

office

, Mother’s sister, and a close personal friend of Father’s. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e hearing , the court issued its ruling from the be nch.

[ ¶ 8 ] T h e c o u r t f

o u n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a d “ a

n o u t s t a n d i n g s e t o f p a r e n t s ” a n d “ a n

incredibly involved father whose life revolves around his relationship with his children.”

The court noted that both Mother and Father were exemplary parents, that the c h i l d r e n

w e r e “ t h r i v

i n g ” i n t h e i r c u r r e n t e

n v i r o n m e n t

, a n d t h a

t t h e “ a r r a n g

e m e n t h e r e i n J a c k s o n has worked incredibly well.” T h e c o u r t f u r t h e r c o m

m e n t e d t h a

t “ I f I h a d m

y w i s h i t

would be that Ms. Arnott would find some way to stay here or nearer so that t h e

e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t M r

. A r n o t t h a s w i t h h i s c h i l d r e

n c o u l d c o n

t i n u e t o

blossom in a similar fashion.” B u t t h e c o u r t a g

a i n n o t e d t

h a t W y o m i n g p r e c e d e n t h a

d

created a “strong presumption in favor of allowing the custodial parent to move with [the]

c h i l d r e n ” a

n d h a d p l a c e d a “ d i f

f i c u l t b u r d e n ” o n t

h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t t o s h o w a material change in circumstances based on the custodial parent’s rel ocation.4

[ ¶ 9 ] F o l l o w i n g t h e c r i t e r i a s e t f o r t h i n W att

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m

i n e d t h a t M o t h e r ’ s

mo tives for the relocation were legitimate, sincere, and in g ood faith. T h e c o u r t a

l s o

found that Mother’s relocation would still permit Father’s reaso n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n i f

visitation was expanded. The court con cluded that Father h ad not established t h a t

Mot her’s relocation constituted a material change of cir c u m s t a n c e s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n

t

consideration of a change in custody. The court’s oral ruling was memorialized i n a

written Order Denying Defendant’s Petition for Modification of Custody and Visitation

, issued on December 27, 2011

. M o t h e r m o v e d t o V i r g

i n i a w i t h t h e c h i l d r e

n s h o r t l y

thereafter.

[ ¶ 1 0 ] After both parties submitted proposals for a revised visitation schedule, the court

o r d e r e d a v

i s i t a t i o n p l a n f

o r F a t h e r t

h a t i n c r e a s e d h i s s u m m e r v i s i t a t i o n t o eight weeks,

a n d e x p a n d e d v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g s c h o o l h o l i d a y s a n d d u r i n g a w e e k i n F e b r u a r y

. The

v i s i t a t i o n p l a n a l s o a l l o w e d Father to visit the children at any time in Virginia with

a d v a n c e n o t i c e

. Father appeals from the district court’s order

.

S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

[ ¶ 1 1 ] F a t h e r c o n t e

n d s the district court misapplied Wyoming law with respect to

w h e t h e r a n i n t e r s t a

t e r e l o c a t i o n c o n s t i t u

t e s a “ m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ”

sufficient to warrant modification of child custody. This Court rev iews questions of l a w

de novo

. W

illis v. Davis , 2010 WY 149, ¶ 10 , 243 P.3d 568, 570 (Wyo. 2010). F a t h e r

also c laims t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a b r i d g e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o r a i s e h i s

children, and asks this Court to overrule the decision in Watt . We review co n s t i t u t i o n a l

issues de novo

. Hanson v. Belveal , 2012 WY 98, ¶ 12, 280 P.3d 1186 , 1191 ( W y o

. 2012). Finally, Father asserts that the district court exceeded “ the bounds of reason” i n determining that Mother’s relocation would still permit reasonable visi tation. O n t h i s

issue, we review for an abuse of discretion. “ T h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g custody and visitation issues to be in the best interests of the children: ‘ C u s t o d y

, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to t h e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e

district court. ’” Zupan v. Zupan , 2010 WY 59, ¶ 12 , 230 P.3d 329, 333 (Wyo. 2010)

(quoting Pace v. Pace , 2001 WY 43, ¶ 9

, 2 2 P

. 3 d 8 6 1

, 8 6 5 ( W y o

. 2 0 0 1 ) )

.

D I S C U S S I O N

[ ¶ 1 2 ] D i s p u t e s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t “ pr e s e n t s o m e o f t h e knottiest and most disturbing problems that our courts are called upon to resolve. ”

Tropea v. Tropea , 665 N.E.2d 145, 148 (N.Y. 1996)

. As one commentator has noted,

R e l o c a t i o n c a s e s a r e “ i n t r a c t a b l e p r o b l e m s ” a n d t h e “ S a

n

Andreas fau l t ” o f f

a m i l y l a w

. W

h e n o n e p a r e n

t a t t e m p t s t o

m o v e a c h i l d a s i g

n i f i c a n t d i s t a n c e f

r o m t h e o t h e r p a r e n t

, t

h e

c h i l d ’ s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e a c h p a r e n t c h a n g e s i n q u a l i t y a n d5 q u a n t i t y

. T h e s e “ n o

- w i n ” c a s e s a r e o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n c r e a s i n g frequency, create enor m o u s t e n s i o n s f o r p a r e n t s a n d t h e i r

c h i l d r e n

, a n d b u r d e

n t h e l e g a l s y s t e m a n d t

h e j u d g e s w h o

h a v e t o d e c i d e t h e m

. A p o t e n t i a l r e l o c a t i o n c a n g e n e r a t e

c o n f l i c t i n c a s e s w

h e r e t h e r e h a d b e e n n o n e b e f o r e

, r e o p e

n old wounds in others, or exacerbate an already highly

conflicted situation.

E l r o d

, L i n d a D

. , N

a t i o n a l a n d I

n t e r n a t i o n a l M

o m e n t u m B u i l d s f o r M o r e C h i l d F o c u s i n

R e l o c a t i o n D i s

p u t e s

, 4 4 F a m

. L

. Q

. 3 4 1

, 3 4 1

- 4 2 ( 2 0 1 0 )

. U n f o r t u n a t e l y

, s u c h c a s e s a r e

i n c r e a s i n g

l y c o m m o n

. 1 I

n this case, Father contends tha t M o t h e r ’ s r e l o c a

t i o n t o V i r g

i n i a

i s a m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y

.

[ ¶ 1 3 ] As a general rule, the provisions of a divorce decree, including those pertaining to

c h i l d c u s t o d y

, a r e s u b

j e c t t o t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a

, w h ich bars litigation of issues

t h a t w e r e o r c o u l d h a v

e b e e n d e t e r m

i n e d i n a p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g

. M e n t o c k v

. M

e n t o c k

, 6 38

P

. 2 d 1 5 6

, 1 5 8 ( W

y o

. 1 9 8 1 )

. Res judicata “ is mandated by public necessity; there m u s t b e an end to litigation at some point, or else the l e g a l s y s t e m w o u l d b e c o m e s o b o g g e d d o w n

that nothing would ever remain decided.” Id. T his Court has recognized , however, t h a t

application of res judicata to a petition for modification of child custody i s n o t

appropriate where there has been a “material or substantial change in c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” w i t h

respect to the initial custody determination. Id

. I n that instance

, r e s j u d i c a t a d o e s n o t

apply because “ [the] m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g i n v

o l v e s n e w i s s u e s f

r a m e d b y f

a c t s differing from those existing when the original decree was entered. A n e w a d j u d i c a t i o n of the rights of the parties must be made. F o r a l l i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s i t i s a s e p a r a t e a n d

distinct case from the original proceeding.” Leitner v. Lonabaugh

, 4 0 2 P

. 2 d 7 1 3

, 7 1 9

(Wyo. 1965).

[ ¶ 1 4 ] T h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f r e s j u d i c a t a h a s b e e n f u n c t i o n a l l y i n c o r

p o r a t e d as a threshold

i n q u i r y u n d e r Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 204 (c) (LexisNexis 2009)

, e n a c t e d i n 2 0 0 0

, w h i c h

governs modifica tion of child custody generally . The statute requires a d e t e r m i n a t i o n

that the re has been a material change in circumstances b e f o r e a c o u r

t m a y c o n s i d e r

whether modification of custody is in the best interests of the children:

1 “ According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 1 in 6 Americans moves each year. A p p r o x i m a t e l y 7

m i l l i o n p e o p l e a y e a

r m o v e f r o m s t a t e t o s t a t e

. The ‘average American’ makes 11.7 moves in a lifetime.

Because of the ord inary needs of both parents after a marital dissolution to secure or retain employment,

pursue educational or career opportunities, or reside i n t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n a s a n e w s p o u s e o r o t h e r f a m i l y

or friends, it is unrealistic to assume that divorced parents will permanently remain in the same location

. ”

In re Marriage of Ciesluk , 113 P.3d 135, 147 (Colo. 2005) (internal citations omitted).6 § 2 0

- 2

- 2 0 4

. E n f

o r c e m e n t a n d m o d i f

i c a t i o n

.

. . .

( c ) A c o u r t h a v

i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n m a y m o d i f y a n o r d e r

c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a r e

, c u s t o d y a n d v i s i t a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n i f

t h e r e i s a s h o w i n g b y e i t h e r p a r e n t o f a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n

c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t

h e e n t r y o f t h e o r d e r i n q u e s t i o n a n d

t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n w o u l d b e i n t

h e b e s t i n t e

r e s t s o f t h e

c h i l d r e n p u r s u a

n t t o W

. S

. 2 0

- 2

- 2 0 1 ( a )

. I n a n y p r o c e e d i n g i n

w h i c h a p a r e n

t s e e k s t o m o d i f

y a n o r d e r c o n c e r n i n g c h i l d

c u s t o d y o r v

i s i t a t i o n

, p r

o o f o f r e p e a t e d

, u

n r e a s o n a b l e f a i l u r e

b y t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t t o a l l o w v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e o t

h e r p a r e n t

i n v i o l a t i o n o f a n o r

d e r m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d a s e v i d e n c e o f a

m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s

.

( E m p h a s i s a d d e d

. ) W e h a v

e s t a t e d t h a t , pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 204(c)

,

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d o e s n o t p r o p e r l y a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

r e o p e n a n e x i s t i n g c u s t o d y o r d e r u n t i l t h e r e h a s b e e n a

s h o w i n g o f “ a s u b s t a n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s

w h i c h o u t w e i g

h s o c i e t y ’ s i n t e r e s t i n a p p l y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e o f

r e s j u d i c a t a ” t o a c

u s t o d y o r d e r

. I

n s h o r t

, u n l e s s t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t f i n d s a m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, i t c a n n o t

proceed to the second step

— d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a

modification would be in the best interests of the child.

Hanson , ¶ 18 , 280 P.3d at 1193 ( quotin g In re TLJ

, 2 0 0 6 W Y 2 8

, ¶ 8

, 1 2 9 P

. 3 d 8 7 4

, 8 7 6

(Wyo. 2006) ) (citations omitted)

. T he burden is on the pa r t y s e e k i n g m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f a custody order to prove , first, that there has been a material change in circumstances

, a n d

second, that modification would be in the best interest s of the children

. Hanson

, ¶ 1 9

, 2 8 0

P.3d at 1193.

[ ¶ 1 5 ] The present case relates to the threshold inquiry under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 204(c): whether relocation of a custodial parent may constitute a material change i n

circumstances sufficient to warrant consideration of w h e t h e r m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y i s i n

the best interests of the chi ldren

. B e c a u s e r e l o c a t i o n o f a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t i s n o t

addressed in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 2 0 4

, o r i n a n y o t h e r p r o v i s i o n o f t h e d o m e s t i c

relations code, our analysis is guided by relevant case law

. F a t h e r a s k s u s t o h o l d

,

c o n t r a r y to established precede

nt, that relocation of a custodial parent may constitute a material change in circumstances warrant ing t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e b e s t

interests of the children

. I n order to facilitate our discussion of the issues presented

, w e begin by set ting forth a brief history of our precedent r e l a t i n g t o m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d7

c u s t o d y b a s e d o n a custodial parent’s relocation

.

[ ¶ 1 6 ] This Court’s first occasion to consider modifica tion of child custody based on the

possible relocation of a custodial parent ar ose in Martin v. Martin

, 7 9 8 P

. 2 d 3 2 1 ( W y o

. 1990). In that case, both parents remained in Laramie a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i r d i v o r c e

, a n d t

h e divorce decree specified that each parent would have physical custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n f o r

six months of the year. Id

. The divorce decree further specified , however, t h a t i f e i t h e r parent relocated f

r o m L a r a m i e

, t h e r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t w o u l d h a v

e c u s t o d y f

o r t h r e e months, and the remaining parent would have custody for nine months. Id. at 321

- 22.

On appeal, this Court hel d that i nclusion of t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r a u t o m a t i c f

u t u r e

m odification of c hild custody wa s an abuse of discretion , noting that c h i l d c u s t o d y

determinations are based on the best interests of the children, and t hat s u c h a

determination c an

not be made absent “ all facts necessar y to make such a determination.”

The district court’ s a n

t i c i p a t o r y c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e best interest of the children will be served by a nine

m onth/three

- m o n t

h s p l i t i n f

a v o r o f t h e p a r e n t r e m a i n i n g i n

Laramie is an abuse of discretion. A s n o t e d a b o v e

, t h e t e s t

f o r c h i l d c u s t o d y i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n

, a n d s u c h

a d e c i s i o n c a n n o t b e m a d e w i t h o u t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a v i n g

before it all facts necessar y t o m a k e s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n

. What those facts may be, if and when one o r t h e o t h e r p a r e n t

l e a v e s L a r a m i e

, c a n o n l y b e p u r e s p e c u l a t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t i n

time. S u c h s p e c u l a t i o n i s n o t a s u b s t i t u t e f o r c o m p l e t e

a n a l y s i s o f a l l e x i s t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e n a n d i f a c h a n g

e i n

the established child custody arrangement becomes neces sary.

I d

. a t 3 2 3

.

[ ¶ 1 7 ] The Court’s next o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s i d e r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y b a s e d o n

r elocation was presented in Love v. Love , 851 P.2d 1283 (Wyo. 1993). In that case, t h e custody arrangement provided that mother would have physical custody of the parties ’

two children w

h i l e s c h o o l w a s i n s e s s i o n

, a n d t h a t f a t h e r w o u l d h a v

e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y during the summer. Id. at 1284 . T h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e i n c o r

p o r a t e d a s t i p u l a

t i o n o f t h e parties that “the residence of the children will not be changed to a p l a c e b e y o n d t h e r a d i u s

of 100 miles from the City of Sheridan , Wyoming, u n l e s s b o t h p a r e n t s c o n s e n

t t h e r e t o o r unless an order . . . has been entered approving such change.” Id. at 1285. M o t h e r subsequently sought an order to show cause as to why she sh o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d t o change her residence and that of her children to Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Id. I n

response, father claimed that mother’s relocation was a sufficient c h a n g e o f

circumstances to warrant modification of custody. Id. The district co u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g

o n m o t h e r ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a c h a n g

e o f r e s i d e n c e

, a t w

h i c h i t r e c e i v

e d t e s t i m o n y f

r o m

the parents and from a psychologist who expressed his opinion as to the c u s t o d i a l8

a r r a n g e m e n t t h a t w o u l d p r

o m o t e t h e b e s t i n

t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n

. I d

. T h e p s y c h o l o g

i s t

t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s ’ 1 5

- y e a r

- o l d s o n w a s c a p a b l e o f m a k i n g “ a r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n i n

his own best interest,” but that it would b e in the 11

- year

- o l d d a u g h t e r ’ s b e s t i n t e r e s t s “ t o have predominant contact with her mother.” Id. T he district court determined t h a t “ t h e

r e s i d e n c e o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n o f t h e p a r t i e s m a y b e c h a n g e d t o a p l a c e b e y o n d t

h e

radius of 100 miles from [Sheridan

, to Sioux Falls].” Id. at 1286.

[ ¶ 1 8 ] O n a p p e a l

, t

h i s C o u r t a f

f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t court’s decision w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e parties’ daughter

. Love , 851 P.2d at 1291. Because the discussion in Love p r o v i d e s t h e

f o u n d a t i o n f

o r W y o m i n g ’ s j u r i s p r

u d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d c

u s t o d y b a s e d

upon relocation of a custodial parent, w e set forth portions of that decision at length :

T h i s c o u r t ’ s t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y i s w e l l

established. W e h a v

e s a i d t h a t t

h e “ g o a l t o b e a c h i e v

e d i s a

r e a s o n a b l e b a

l a n c e o f t h e r i g

h t s a n d a f

f e c t i o n s o f e a c h o f t

h e parents, with paramount consideration being given to t h e

welfare and needs of the children.” Leitner v. Lonabaugh

, 402 P.2d 713, 720 (Wyo. 1965); See also

, F a n n i n g v

. Fanning , 717 P.2d 346, 353 (Wyo. 1986); B e r e m a n v

. Bereman , 645 P.2d 1155 [, 1160] (Wyo. 1982); A y l i n g v

. Ayling , 661 P.2d 1054, [1056] (Wyo. 1 983); Yates v. Yates

, 702 P.2d 1252, 1256 (Wyo. 1985).

. . .

C a s e s i n v

o l v i n g r e l o c a t i o n o f p a r e n t s a r e f a c t s e n s i t i v e ;

w e w o u l d b e r e m

i s s t o a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e a b r i g h t l i n e t e s t f

o r

t h e i r d e t e r m

i n a t i o n

. W

h e r e t h e i s s u e i s r e l o c a t i o n o f o n e o f

t h e p a r t i e s

, w e m

u s t r e m e m

b e r t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t

h e

c h i l d s t a n d a r

d w a s a p p l i e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y

a w a r d

. T h e r e f

o r e

, o u r r e v i e w l o o k s m o r e c l o s e l y a t b a l a n c i n g

t h e c o n t i n u e d r i g h t s o f t h e p a r

t i e s w i t h t h e b e s t i n

t e r e s t s o f t h e

c h i l d r e n a s e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e o f d i v

o r c e

. W e w i l l

c o n s i d e r t h e a t t r i b u t e s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r e n t s a n d

c h i l d r e n a n d h o w t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e f a r e d u n d e r t h e o r i g

i n a l

c u s t o d y a n d v

i s i t a t i o n a r r a n g

e m e n t

. W e w i l l c o n s i d e r a l s o

w h e t h e r t h e r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t ’ s m o t i v e s f o r p r o p o s i n g t h e

m o v e a r e l e g

i t i m a t e

, s i n c e r e

, i n g

o o d f a i t h

, a n d w

h e t h e r

r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r e n t

. S e e

, A r q u i l l a [ v

. A r q u i l l a ]

, 4 0 7 N

. E

. 2 d [ 9 4 8

, ] 9 5 0 [ ( I l l

. A p p

. 1 9 8 0 ) ] ; H o l d e r v

. P o l a n s k

i

, 1 1 1 N

. J

. 3 4 4

, 5 4 4 A

. 2 d 8 5 2

, 8 5 5

( N

. J

. 1 9 8 8 )

.9 . . .

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t m a k e c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n

t h e c h i l d r e

n ’ s c u r r e n

t s c h o o l s a

n d t h e S i o u x F a l l s s c h o o l

system b ut concluded that the children “ w i l l d o e q u a l l y w e l l

whether they are in Sheridan or Sioux Falls, o r p r o b a b l y i f

they were anyplace th ey’re going to do equally well.” I n t h i s context, we agree with a Michigan court which stated:

“ ‘ W e l i v e i n a t r a n s i e n t s o c i e t y

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f a c h i l d

, s t a t e b o u n d a r i e s a r e a r t i f

i c i a l

a n d m e a n i n g

l e s s ; t h e r e i s n o p r e s u m

p t i o n t h a t b r i n g

i n g

u p a c h i l d i n M i c h i g a n h a s a n y a d v

a n t a g e ( o r

d i s a d v a n t a g e ) o v e r M i s s o u r i o r G e o r g

i a

, o r a n y o t h e r

s t a t e

. T o c o n c l u d e o t h e r w i s e w o u l d b e a m e a n i n g l e s s

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n

. R e s t r i c t i o n s u p o n w h e r e a c u s t o d i a l

p a r e n t m a y l i v

e

, i n t e r m s o f g

e o g r a p h y

, a r e n o t

r e a l i s t i c

. I

n e v e r y s t a t e t h e r e a r e g

o o d a n d b a d p l a c e s

to bring up a child. ’”

D e G r o w v

. D e G r o w

, 1 1 2 M i c h

. A p p

. 2 6 0

, 3 1 5 N

. W

. 2 d 9 1 5

, 9 1 8 ( M i c h

. A

p p

. 1 9 8 2 ) ( q u o t i n g H

u t c h i n s v

. H

u t c h i n s

, 8 4

M i c h

. A p p

. 2 3 6

, 2 6 9 N

. W

. 2 d 5 3 9

, 5 4 0 ( M i c h

. A p p

. 1 9 7 8 )

( B e a s l e y

, J

. , c o n c u r r i n g

) )

. T h i s s t a t e m e n t s u r e l y a p p l i e s t o

c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n W

y o m i n g a n d S o u

t h D a k o t a a s w e l l

.

T h e t e s t w e w i l l u t i l i z e i n r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s i s m o s t

s i m i l a r t o t h a

t e s p o u s e d i n A r q u i l l a

. W e a g r e e :

I t w o u l d b e i n c o n g

r u o u s f o r a c o u r t

, w

h e n p r e s e n t e d

w i t h a c u s t o d i a l o r d e r o r i g i n a l l y b a s e d u p o n t h e b e s t

i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d

, t o r e f u s e t o s u p p o r t t

h e e f f o r t s o f

t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t t o m a i n t a i n a n d e n h a n c e t h e i r

s t a n d a r d o f l i v

i n g

, a l b e i t i n a n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

. S o

l o n g a s t h e c o u r

t i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e m o t i v

e s o f t h e

c u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t i n s e e k i n g t h e m o v

e a n d r e a s o n a b l e

v i s i t a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r e n t

, r e m o v a l

s h o u l d b e g

r a n t e d

.

A r q u i l l a

, 4 0 7 N

. E

. 2 d a

t 9 5 0

.

We acknowledge that mot her’ s p l a n s a t t h i s t i m e a r e

s p e c u l a t i v

e ; s h e h a s n o t e n r o l l e d h e r s e l f o r h e r c h i l d r e n i n10 s c h o o l

, p u r c h a s e d a h o m e o r i d e n t i f i e d e m p l o y m e n t

o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n S i o u x F a l l s

. H e r p r e v i o u s e m p l o y m e n t i n

S h e r i d a n

, h o w e v

e r

, w a s n o t l o n g t e r m

, f o u n d t o b e

u n a p p e a l i n g a n d i n l e s s t h a n t h r e e y e a r s h e r a l i m o n y s u p p o r t

w i l l t e r m i n a t e

. M o t h e r h a s i d e n

t i f i e d w h a t s h e b e l i e v

e s t o b e

a p o s i t i v e s o l u t i o n t o t

h e s e p r o b l e m s : r e l o c a t i o n t o S i o u x

F a l l s

.

T o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w e a d d t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w h e t h e r

a n “ e s t a b l i s h e d c u s t o d i a l e n v i r o n m e n t c o n

t i n u e s t o e x i s t

despite a c hange in the children’s domicile.” DeGrow

, 3 1 5

N.W.2d at 917. This situation has been defined as one that

e m p h a s i z e s t h e c o n t i n u i t y a n d s t r e n g t h o f a n

e s t a b l i s h e d r e l a

t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c

u s t o d i a n a n d a

c h i l d

. T h e c u s t o d i a l e n v i r o n m e n t i s t h e f

a m i l y u n i t

w h i c h c a n n o t b e d e s t r o y e d b y a s i m p l e c h a n g

e i n

g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n

. T h e f a m i l y u n i t s t i l l w i l l b e

p r e s e r v e d i n t h e n e w d o m

i c i l e

.

D e G r o w

, 3 1 5 N

. W

. 2 d a

t 9 1 8

.

A s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t r e c o g n i z e d

, d e s p i t e a c h a n g

e i n

r e s i d e n c e

, t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o s u g g e s t t h a t m o t

h e r w i l l n o t

c o n t i n u e t o p r o v i d e a c a r i n g

, n u r t u r i n g e n v i r o n m e n t f o r h e r

c h i l d r e n

. We agree that [the parties’ daughter] s h o u l d s t a y

with her mother. This part of the district court’ s decis i o n i s

s u p p o r t e d b y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f D r

. L e u g e r s a n d m o t h e r w

h o

identified [the daughter’s] emotional needs in this area.

F a t h e r a l s o r a i s e s t h e i s s u e o f p r o b l e m a t i c v i s i t a t i o n i f

m o t h e r i s t o m o v

e

. H e s t a t e d t

h a t h i s w e e k e n d v

i s i t a t i o n

w o u l d b e “

n o n

- e xistent” because of the distanc e b e t w e e n t h e

two towns. Father’ s cha n g e i n v i s i t a t i o n d u e t o m o t h e r ’ s

relocation is unfortunate, but not an unusual result of divorce.

Nelson v. Card

, 1 6 2 C o l o

. 2 7 4

, 4 2 5 P

. 2 d 2 7 6

, 2 7 8 ( C o l o

. 1967). We agree that a court

s h o u l d n o t i n s i s t t h a t t

h e a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e m o v

e b e

s a c r i f i c e d a n d t h e o p p o r

t u n i t y f o r a b e t t e r a n d m o r e

c o m f o r t a b l e l i f

e s t y l e f o r t h e m o t h e r a n d c h i l d r e n b e

f o r f e i t e d s o l e l y t o m a i n t a i n w e e k l y v i s i t a t i o n b y t h e

f a t h e r w h e r e r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e v i s i t a t i o n i s11 a v a i l a b l e a n d w

h e r e t h e a

d v a n t a g e s o f t h e m o v

e a r e

s u b s t a n t i a l

.

D ' O n o f r i o [ v. D’Onofrio ] , 365 A.2d [27,] 30 [(N.J. 1976)]

. Mother ’ s m o t i v

e f o r w a n t i n g t o r e l o c a t e i s l e g i t i m a t e

, s i n c e r e and in good faith. Though the details of the move have not

been fleshed out, the district c o u r t w a s c o n v

i n c e d t h a t

m other’ s e x c e p t i o n a l p a r e n t i n g w o u l d c o n t i n

u e i n a n o t

h e r

locale. T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e w h e t h e r e i t h e r p a r t y

c o n t e m p l a t e d a n a l t e r n a

t i v e t o t h e c u r r e n

t v i s i t a t i o n

arrangement. However, more t h a n i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o t h e

noncustodial parent must be shown t o d e f e a t t h e c u s t o d i a l

parent’ s right to relocate. Cooper v. Cooper

, 9 9 N

. J

. 4 2

, 4 9 1

A.2d 606, 614 (N.J. 1984). T h i s c o u r t r e c e n t l y u p h e l d a complex and somewhat restrictive visitation schedule f o r t h e

father o f t w o y o u

n g c h i l d r e n w

h o w e r e i n t h e c

u s t o d y o f t h e i r mother, living in Las Vegas. I n t h a t c a s e w e u n d e r s c o r e d t h a t

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e s i s w i t h i n t h e s o u n d

discretion of the district court. Rowan v. Rowan

, 7 8 6 P

. 2 d

886, 891 (Wyo. 1990). T h o u g h v i s i t a t i o n f

o r f a t h e r m a y b e

more difficult, it is still within the bounds of reason.

. . .

W e d i s c e r n n o a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

i n p e r m i t t i n g m o t h e r t o r e l o c a t e w i t h t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d

.

L o v e

, 8 5 1 P

. 2 d a t 1 2 8 7

- 8 9 ( i t a l i c s i n o r i g

i n a l )

.

[ ¶ 1 9 ] With respect to the district court’s decision as it pertained to the parties’ son

, however, this Court reached a different conclusion. We reversed the district court ’ s

decision to maintain the same custodial arrangement with r e s p e c t t o t h e p a r t i e s ’ s o n

based on the court’s failure to “acknowledge and give weight to his wishes” re g a r d i n g geographic preference. Id . at 1291.

C o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r e f

e r e n c e s o f c h i l d r e n i n c u s t o d y

m a t t e r s

, w e h a v

e s a i d t h a t “ t

h e p r e f e r e n c e o f a c h i l d o f

s u f f i c i e n t a g e a n d m a t u r i t y i s a f

a c t o r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d b y a

court in as certaining what is in the child’s best interests.”

Roberts [ v. Vilos ]

, 776 P.2d [216,] 218 [(Wyo. 1989)]

. Though this is o ne factor to consider, “ suc h p r e f e r e n c e i s n o t

conclus ive.” Yates v. Yates

, 7 0 2 P

. 2 d 1 2 5 2

, 1 2 5 5 ( W y o

. 1985). I n t h e f e w c a s e s i n w

h i c h w e h a v

e d e l i b e r a t e d t

h i s12 i s s u e

, w e h a v

e p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g q u o t e w

h i c h s t i l l a p t l y

a p p l i e s :

S u c h w e t h i n k i s t h e g

e n e r a l r u l e ; f o r

, i f t h e h a p p i n e s s

a n d w e l f a r e o f t h e i n f

a n t i s t o b e c o n s u l t e d

, n o t h i n g

c o u l d b e m o r e p o t e

n t u p o n t

h a t q u e s t i o n t h a n t

h e expression of [the child’s] p r e f e r e n c e b a s e d u

p o n

k i n d n e s s o r u n k i n d n e s s

, c a r e o r w a n t o f c a r e

, l o v e a n d

a f f e c t i o n o r w a n t t h e r e o f

, a n d

, a s t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g

conditions, either with one or the other.

Y a t e s

, 7 0 2 P

. 2 d a t 1 2 5 6 ( q u o t i n g T y t l e r v

. T y t l e r

, 1 5 W y o

. 3 1 9

, 3 3 8

, 8 9 P

. 1

, 6 ( 1 9 0 7 ) )

.

I t a p p e a r s t o b e t

h e a l m o s t u n i v

e r s a l r u l e t h a t a t l e a s t

w h e n a c h i l d i s o f s u f

f i c i e n t a g e

, i n t e l l i g

e n c e

, a n d

d i s c r e t i o n t o e x e r c i s e a n e n l i g h t e n e d j u d g m e n t a s t o

[ t h e c h i l d ’ s ] f

u t u r e w e l f

a r e

, b a s e d u p o n f

a c t s a n d n o t

m ere whims, [the child’s] w i s h e s a r e o n e f a c t o r w h i c h

m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g

c u s t o d y

, i n d o u

b t f u l c a s e s i n a n y e v

e n t

, u s u a l l y n o t

because of a ny lega l right in the child to h a v e [ t h e

child’s] w i s h e s g r a n t e d

, b u t b e c a u s e t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

o f s u c h w i s h e s w i l l a i d t h e c o u r t i n m a k i n g a c u s t o d i a l

d e c r e e w h i c h i s f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n d w e l f a r e o f t h e

child.

Y a t e s

, 7 0 2 P

. 2 d a t 1256 (quoting Annotation, C h i l d ’ s W i s h e s as a Factor in Awarding Custody

, 4 A

. L

. R

. 3 d 1 3 9 6

, 1 4 0 2

(1965 & Supp. 1992)). See also

, Douglas v. Sheffner

, 7 9

Wyo. 172, 331 P.2d 840, 844 (Wyo. 1958).

L o v e

, 8 5 1 P

. 2 d a t 1 2 8 9

- 9 0

. Noting that an abuse of discretion occurs when “a materia l

f a c t o r d e s e r v i n g s i g

n i f i c a n t w e i g

h t i s i g n o r e d

, ” t h i s C o u r t f

o u n d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s failure to weigh the son’s geographic preference in determining wh ich party s h o u l d b e awarded primary physical custody was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1291.

[ ¶ 2 0 ] T h e Court took Wyoming’s relocation jurisprudence a step further in Watt

. I n t h a t

case, mother was granted primary physical custody of the parties’ three children. Id.

, 9 7 1

P.2d at 610. However, the divorce decree provided for an automatic change in cus t o d y

f rom mother to father if mother moved more than fifty miles from Upton, Wyoming

, where the parties resided

. Id. After m o t h e r w a s a c c e p t e d i n t o t h e p h a r m a c y p r o g

r a m a t

the University of Wyoming, she sought modification of the divorce decree in order t o13

a l l o w h e r t o p u r s u e h e r d e g r e e i n L a r a m

i e

. I d

. F a t h e r o p p o s e d t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n a n d

r e q u e s t e d t h a

t c u s t o d y b e a w a r d e d t o h i m b a s e d o n t h e a u t o m a t i c c h a n g

e i n c u s t o d y

p r o v i s i o n i n t h e d i v

o r c e d e c r e e

. I

d

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t r

u l e d t h a t i t h a d e r r e d i n p r o v

i d i n g f o r

a n a u t o m a t i c c h a n g

e o f c u s t o d y i n t h e d e c r e e a n d r e f u s e d t o i n v

o k e i t

. I d

. N o n e t h e l e s s

,

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t f o u n d a m a t e r i a l c h a

n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s b a s e d o n m o t h e r ’ s r e l o c a t i o n and found that the children’s best interests would be served by rem a i n i n g w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r in Upton. Id. at 612

.

[ ¶ 2 1 ] O n a p p e a l

, t

h i s C o u r t b e g

a n i t s r e v i e w w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f L o v e , placing emphasis

on that opinion’s pronouncement, in a quotation from Arquilla

, that “ S o l o n g a s t h e c o u r t

is satisfied with the motives of t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t i n s e e k i n g t h e m o v

e a n d r e a s o n a b l e

visitation is available to the remaining parent, removal should be granted

. ” Watt

, 9 7 1

P.2d at 6 1 4 ( e m

p h a s i s o m i t t e d )

. T h e C o u r t pronounced that “ R e lo c a t i o n a s a

substantial and material change in cir cumstances was foreclosed by the decision in Love

. O u r d e c i s i o n e s t a b l i s h e d a s t r o n g p r e s u m p t i o n i n f

a v o r o f t h e r i g h t o f a c u s t o d i a l

parent to relocate with her children , assuming that the criteria art iculated in Love a r e

satisfied.” Id. (emphasis added )

. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n in finding a material change in circumstances based on mother’s relocation, W att h e l d

that “ a r e l o c a t i o n

, b y i t s e l f

, i s n o t a s u

b s t a n t i a l o r m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s sufficient to ju stif

y a change in custody order.” Id. The decision focus e d h e a v i l y o n t h e custodial parent’s right to travel, reasoning as follows:

T h e c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l q u e s t i o n p o s e d i s w h e t h e r t h e r i g

h t s

o f a p a r e n t a n d t h e d

u t y o f t h e c o u r t s t o a d

j u d i c a t e c u s t o d y

s e r v e a s a p r e m

i s e f o r r e s t r i c t i n g o r i n h i b i t i n g t h e f r e e d o m t o

t r a v e l o f a c i t i z e n o f t h e S t a t e o f W y o m i n g a n d o f t h e U

n i t e d

S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a

. W e h o l d t h i s t o b e i m p o s s i b l e

. T h e r i g

h t

o f t r a v e l e n j o y e d b y a c i t i z e n c a r r i e s w i t h i t t h e r i g h t o f a

c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t t o h a v e t h e c h i l d r e n m o v

e w i t h t h a t p a r e n

t

. T h i s r i g h t i s n o t t o b e d e n i e d

, i m p a i r e d

, o r d i s p a r a g

e d u n l e s s

c l e a r e v i d e n c e b e f

o r e t h e c o u r t d e m o n s t r a t e s a n o t h e r

s u b s t a n t i a l a

n d m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e a n d

e s t a b l i s h e s t h e d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o f t h e m o v

e u p o n t

h e

c h i l d r e n

. S e e I

n r e M a r r i a g e o f B u r g e s s

, 1 3 C a l

. 4 t h 2 5

, 5 1

C a l

. R p t r

. 2 d 4 4 4

, 9 1 3 P

. 2 d 4 7 3

, 4 8 0 ( 1 9 9 6 ) a n d M a t t e r o f

M a r r i a g e o f G r e e n e

, 1 0 7 O r e

. A

p p

. 3 3 8

, 8 1 2 P

. 2 d 1 1

, 1 1

( 1 9 9 1 )

. W

h i l e r e l o c a t i o n c e r

t a i n l y m a y b e s t r e s s f

u l t o a c h i l d

,

t h e n o r m a l a n x i e t i e s o f a c h a n g e o f r e s i d e n c e a n d t h e i n h e r e n t

d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n

p a r e n t s i m

p o s e s a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e “ d e t r i m e n t a l ”

f a c t o r s

. C f

. I n r e M a r r i a g e o f S h e l e y

, 7 8 W a s h

. A

p p

. 4 9 4

, 8 9 5 P

. 2 d 8 5 0

, 8 5 6 ( 1 9 9 5 )

, o v e r r u l e d o n o t

h e r g r o u n d s b y I n

r e M a r r i a g e o f L i t t l e f i e l d

, 1 3 3 W a s h

. 2 d 3 9

, 9 4 0 P

. 2 d 1 3 6 2

,14 1 3 7 1 ( W a s h

. 1 9 9 7 ) a n d J a n e t M

. B o w e r m a s t e r

, S y m p a t h i z i n g

w i t h S o l o m o n : C

h o o s i n g B e t w

e e n P a r e n t s i n a M

o b i l e

S o c i e t y

, 3 1 U

. L o u i s v i l l e J

. F a m

. L a w 7 9 1

, 7 9 9 ( 1 9 9 2

- 9 3 )

.

T h e s o u n d p o l i c y r e a s o n s w h i c h s u p p o r t t h i s a n a l y s i s

w e r e a r t i c u l a t e d b y t

h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a l i f

o r n i a :

A s t h i s c a s e d e m o n s t r a t e s

, o u r s i s a n i n c r e a s i n g l y

m o b i l e s o c i e t y

. A m i c i c u r i a e p o i n t o u t t h a t

a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e A m e r i c a n i n f i v e c h a n g e s

r e s i d e n c e s e a c h y e a r

. E c o n o m i c n e c e s s i t y a n d

r e m a r r i a g e a c c o u n t f

o r t h e b u l k o f r e l o c a t i o n s

. B e c a u s e o f t h e o r d i n a r y n e e d s f o r b o t h p a r e n t s a f t e r a

m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n t o s e c u r e o r r e t a i n e m p l o y m e n t

,

p u r s u e e d u c a t i o n a l o r c a r e e r o p p o r t

u n i t i e s

, o r r e s i d e i n

t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n a s a n e w s p o u s e o r o t h e r f a m i l y o r

f r i e n d s

, i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o a s s u m e t h a t d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s

w i l l p e r m a n e n t l y r e m a i n i n t h e s a m e l o c a t i o n a f t e r

d i s s o l u t i o n o r t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e o n t h e m t o d o s o

. I t

w o u l d a l s o u n d e r m

i n e t h e i n t e r e s t i n m

i n i m i z i n g c o s t l y

l i t i g a t i o n o v e r c u s t o d y a n d r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r

t s t o

“ m i c r o m a n a g

e ” f a m i l y d e c i s i o n m a k i n g b y s e c o n d

g u e s s i n g r e a s o n s f

o r e v e r y d a y d e c i s i o n s a b o u t c a r e e r

a n d f a m i l y

.

I n r e M a r r i a g e o f B u r g e s s

, 9 1 3 P

. 2 d a t 4 8 0

- 8 1 ( e m p h a s i s i n

o r i g i n a l )

. A n i n h i b i t i o n u p o n t

h e r i g h t t o t r a v

e l i s n e v e r

i m p o s e d u p o n t h e n o n

- c

u s t o d i a l p a r e n t w

h o i s f r e e t o m o v

e a t

w i l l d e s p i t e t h e l o c a

t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n

. T h e m o t i v e s o f t h e

n o n

- c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t w i l l n o t b e q u e s t i o n e d b y t h e c o u r t w i t h

r e s p e c t t o s u c h r e l o c a t i o n

, a n d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t h a s n o

p o w e r t o i n h i b i t i t

. T h e i n h e r e n t i n e q u i t i e s o f s u c h a s i t u a t i o n

s t a n d a s a n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n t h a t c o u r t s h a v

e c o n c l u d e d t h a

t

c u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t s s h o u l d b e p e r m

i t t e d t o m o v

e w i t h t h e i r

c h i l d r e n

. I

n r e M a r r i a g e o f F r a n c i s

, 9 1 9 P

. 2 d 7 7 6

, 7 8 4 ( C o l o

. 1996); D’ Onofrio , 365 A.2d at 30.

M r

. W a t t

, a s t

h e n o n

- c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n

,

w a s r e q u i r e d t o c a r r y t h e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t a

m a t e r i a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d

o c c u r r e d

, s u f

f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f

y t h e t r i a l c o u r

t i n o r d e r i n g a

c h a n g e i n c u s t o d y

. H e d i d n o t m e e t t h a t b u r d e n o t h e r t

h a n b y

e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e r e l o c a t i o n

, w h i c h w e h o l d

, a s a m a t t e r [ o f ]15 l a w

, i s n o t

, w i t h o u t m o r e

, a m a t e r i a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e o f

c i r c u m s t a n c e s f

o r purposes of invoking Wyo. Stat. § 20

- 2

- 113(a) (Repl. 1994). “ ‘ [A] p a r t y m u s t s h o w

, i n a

d d i t i o n t o

t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d e x t e

n t o f t h e c h a n g

e

, t h a t t h e c h a n g

e i s

significant in relation to the modification sought. ’ ” S t e v e n s

v. Collard

, 837 P.2d 593, 596 (Utah App. 1992), cert. denied

, 862 P.2d 1356 (Utah 1993) (quoting Becker v. Becker

, 6 9 4

P.2d 608, 610 (Utah 1984)) (emphasis in original).

I n l i g h t o f o u r p r i o r c a s e s

, a n d o u r c o n c e r n f o r

t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i b e r t i e s o f t h e c i t i z e n s o f t h e

S t a t e o f W

y o m i n g

, w e h o l d t h a t a

n i n t r a s t a t e r e l o c a

t i o n b y a

c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t

, t a k i n g t h e c h i l d r e n a l o n g

, c a n n o t b y i t s e l f b e

c o n s i d e r e d a c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f

f i c i e n t l y s u b s t a n t i a l

a n d m a t e r i a l t o j u s t i f

y r e o p e n i n g t h e q

u e s t i o n o f c u s t o d y

. I

n

v a r i o u s w a y s

, s e v e r a l o f o u r s i s t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e a d o p t e d

t h i s r u l e

. E

. g

. , J a r a m i l l o v

. J

a r a m i l l o

, 1 1 3 N

. M

. 5 7

, 8 2 3 P

. 2 d

2 9 9

, 3 0 4

- 0 5 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; M

a t t e r o f M a r r i a g e o f D u c k e t t

, 1 3 7 O r e

. A p p

. 4 4 6

, 9 0 5 P

. 2 d 1 1 7 0

, 1 1 7 2 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; M a t t e r o f M a r r i a g e o f

G r e e n e

, 8 1 2 P

. 2 d a t 1 1

- 1 2 ; a n d F o s s u m v

. F o s s u m

, 1 9 9 6 S D

3 8

, 5 4 5 N

. W

. 2 d 8 2 8

, 8 3 2

- 3 3 ( S

. D

. 1 9 9 6 )

.

T h i s p r e c e p t a l s o a p p l i e s t o f a c t o r s t h a t a r e d e r i v a t i v

e

o f t h e r e l o c a t i o n

. The custodial parent’ s r i g h t t o m o v

e w i t h

the children is constitutionally protected, and a cour t may n o t

order a change in custody b a s e d u p o n t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e

alone. S o m e o t h e r c h a n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t o g

e t h e r w i t h

c l e a r e v i d e n c e o f t h e d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o f t h e o t h e r c h a n g

e upon the children, is required. S u c h a c i r c u m s t a n c e necessarily would h a v

e t o b e s u f

f i c i e n t l y d e l e t e r i o u s t o t

h e

w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e

n t h a t b y i t s e l f i t w o u l d s e r v e a s a

substantial a

n d m a t e r i a l c h a

n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s e v

e n i n t h e

absence of a relocation.

T h e t r i a l j u d g

e i n t h i s c a s e c h a n g

e d c u s t o d y f

r o m M r s

. W a t t t o M r

. Watt based upon Mrs. Watt’ s move to Laramie.

The other factors articulated by the t r i a l c o u r t

, s u c h a s M r s

. Watt’ s a l l e g

e d p r e v i o u s i n t e r e s t i n s e e i n g h e r c h i l d r e n

b r o u g h t u p i n U p t o n ; t h e r e l o c a

t i o n o f t h e m a t e r n a l

gran dparents to Upton; or Mrs. Watt’ s s t a t u s a s a s t u d e n t d o

n o t

, t o g e t h e r o r s e p a r a t e l y

, c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l a n d

s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o j u s t i f y t h e o r d e r o f t h e

trial court. T h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e e x a m p l e s o f t h o s e16 f a c t o r s

, c l e a r l y r e l a

t e d t o a n d d e r i v

a t i v e o f t h e r e l o c a t i o n

,

w h i c h h a v e n o n e g

a t i v e i m p a c t u p o n t

h e w e l f a r e o f t h e

c h i l d r e n

. M r s

. W a t t m o v e d t o L a r a m i e f

o r l e g i t i m a t e

, s i n c e r e

,

a n d g o o d f a i t h r e a s o n s

, a n d M r

. W a t t i s s e e k i n g t o o b t a i n

c u s t o d y o f h i s s o n s f

o r l e g i t i m a t e

, s i n c e r e

, a n d g o o d f a i t h

r e a s o n s

. N o e v

i d e n c e i n t

h e r e c o r d s h o w s t h e m o v e i s

d e t r i m e n t a l t o t

h e c h i l d r e

n

, u n l e s s i t b e t h e s p e c u l a t i v e

s u g g e s t i o n b y t

h e t r i a l c o u r t t

h a t a c o n c e r n e x i s t s a s t o M r s

. W a t t ’ s s t a t u s a s a s t u d e n t i n a d i s c i p l i n e t h a t i s a d i f f i c u l t

u n d e r t a k i n g a n d i t s d e t r a c t i o n f r o m h e r a b i l i t y t o r e a r h e r

c h i l d r e n

.

R e a s o n a b l e v

i s i t a t i o n r e m a i n s p o s s i b l e

, e v e n i f t h a t

v i s i t a t i o n m i g

h t b e l e s s t h a n w

h a t M r

. W a t t p r e v i o u s l y

e n j o y e d

. V i s i t a t i o n c a n b e r e s o l v e d b y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

e x e r c i s e o f t h e b r o a

d d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o m o d i f

y

o r d e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n t a c t a n d v i s i t a t i o n i n o r d e r t o

m i n i m i z e t h e l o s s o f c o n t a c t a n d v i s i t a t i o n b e t w e e n c h i l d r e n

a n d t h e n o n

- c

u s t o d i a l p a r e n t

. R e l o c a t i o n i n d e e d i s a g r o u n d

f o r s u c h a m o d i f

i c a t i o n

. I

t i s n o t a g

r o u n d f o r m o d i f y i n g

c u s t o d y

. W i t h o u t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l

c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e t o j u s t i f y a c h a n g

e i n c u s t o d y i n t h i s

c a s e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r

t s h o u l d n o t h a v

e c o n s i d e r e d t

h e i s s u e

.

W a t t

, 9 7 1 P

. 2 d a

t 6 1 5

- 1 7

.

[ ¶ 2 2 ] A l t h o u g

h W a t t has been cited with approval in several o f t h i s C o u r t ’ s s u b s e q u e n t

decisions, the results reached in those cases were n o t d e p e n d e n t u p o n a

p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e presumption in favor of the relocating, custodial parent established in Watt

. See Hanson

, ¶ 36, 280 P.3d at 1197

- 98 (affirming denial of fa t h e r ’ s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y a f

t e r

n o t i n g t h a t “ G i v

e n t h a t M o t

h e r h a d r e t

u r n e d t o W

y o m i n g b y t h e t i m e o f t r i a l a n d t h a t

F a t h e r d i d n o t r e q u e s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s o w n r e l o c a t i o n

, t h e p a r t i e s ’ r e s p e c t i v e

relocations outside Wyoming were not factors fo r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n determining whether there had been a material change in c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. W e t h e r e f o r e d o not give the relocations any further consideration.”) ; Zupan , ¶¶ 35

- 36, 230 P.3d at 338

- 39; Testerman v. Testerman , 2008 WY 112, 193 P.3d 1141 (Wyo. 2008); M o r r i s v

. Morris , 2007 WY 174, 170 P.3d 86 (Wyo. 2007); TW v. BM

, 2 0 0 6 W Y 6 8

, 1 3 4 P

. 3 d

1262 (Wyo. 2006); Harshberger v. Harshberger

, 2 0 0 5 W Y 9 9

, 1 1 7 P

. 3 d 1 2 4 4 ( W y o

. 2005); and Resor v. Resor , 987 P .2d 146 (Wyo. 1999)

.

[ ¶ 2 3 ] I n a t l e a s t o n e c a s e d e c i d e d a f t e r W a t t

, w e h a v

e s u g g e s t e d t h a t a r e l o c a t i o n , by

i t s e l f

, m a y c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. I

n J R S v

. G M S , 2004 WY 60,

9 0 P

. 3 d 7 1 8 ( W

y o

. 2 0 0 4 )

, f

ather was initially awarded custody of the parti e s ’ t w o o l d e r17

c h i l d r e n

, a n d m o t h e r w a s a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e t w o y o u

n g e r c h i l d r e n

. F a t

h e r f i l e d a

p e t i t i o n t o m o d i f

y c u s t o d y

, a s s e r t i n g t h a t m o t h er ’s relocation to S o u t h D a k o t a a n d h e r

f a i l u r e t o c o o p e r a

t e i n p e r m

i t t i n g v i s i t a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n

circumstances

. Id.

, ¶¶ 3

- 5, 90 P.3d at 719

- 20. F ather asse rted that it was in t h e b e s t

interests of the younger children to be in his custody. Id

., ¶ 5, 90 P.3d at 720. M other

, however, also sought mo dification of the custodial arrangement so that she would have

cus tody of the parties’ two older children. I d. , ¶ 6, 90 P.3d at 720. E v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d

that the children’s stepmother and mother’s fiancé had abused the children. Id.

, ¶ 9

, 9 0

P.3d at 722. The district court denied the petitions to modify custody, findi n g n o m a t e r i a l

change in circumstances. On a ppeal , this Court reversed, concluding that a n u m b e r o f

factors, including mother’s relocation, constituted a change in circumstances:

W e a r e u n a b l e t o a

g r e e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t

t h e r e w a s n o t a m a t e r

i a l c h a n g e i n c

i r c u m s t a n c e

s i n t h i s

c a s e

. M o t h e r ’ s r e l o c a t i o n t o S o u t h D a k o t a m i

g h t w e l l h a v e

been viewed as a material change. T h e t e s t i m o n

y t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r

d w a s t

h a t t h e u n u s u a l c u s t o d

y

arra ngements to which these parents a g r e e d ( i t w a s n o t

fash i o n e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t )

, w o r k e d o n l

y s o l o n g a s t h e

p a r e n t s b o t h r e s i d e d i n C r o o k C o u n t y a n d w e r e c l o s e

enough to each other to make it functional. I t d i d n o t w o r k

o n c e M o t h e r w a s i n S

o u t h D a k o t a , s o m e t i m e s w i t h o u t a c a r

to transport the children, an d F a t h e r w a s n o t f

r e e , n o r w a s

h e a l w a y s a b l e , t o t r a v e l t o S o u t h D a k o t a t o f a c i l i t a t e

visitation. T h a t M o t

h e r ’ s f i a n c e

, a n d h e r b r

o t h e r

, w e r e

a c c u s e d o f s e x

u a l l y a s s a u l t i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’ y o u n g e s t d a u g h t e r also might well have been viewed as a material cha n g e o f

circumstances. There was another potential material cha n g e

when the youngest chil d r e n w e r e u p r o o t e d f r o m M o t h e r ’ s

h o m e

, a n d s e n t t o l i v

e i n S h e r i d a n C o u n t y w i t h F a t h e r ’ s n e w

w i f e

, t h e p a r t i e s ’ t w o o t h e r c h i l d r e n

, a n d S t e p m o t h e r ’ s t

h r e e

children. T here was likely a material cha n g e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e

w h e n a l l f o u r c h i l d r e

n w e r e t a k e n f

r o m t h e i r h o m e a n d p l a c e d

in DFS cu stody (in a group home) as a result of Stepmother’ s abusive acts against the children. T h e r e w e r e p o t e n t i a l

m aterial changes of circums t a n c e w h e n t h e c h i l d r e

n w e r e placed in the custody of Father’ s m o t h e r a n d s t e p f a t h e r

, a n d

when Father was finally accorded full custody a g a i n

, w i t h h i s mother and stepfather providing a backup for Father. T h i s

list of changes in circumstances is not meant t o b e

e xhaustive. W

h i l e a n y o n e o f t h e m m i g h t w e l l h a v e s e r v e

d

t o r e q u i r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o r e c

o n s i d e r a m o r e s u i t

a b l e

c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t f

o r t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e s e18 c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e

q u i r e s a r e m a n d f

o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o

f u l l y a d d r e s s t h e n e e d s o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n w i t h r e s p e c t t o

c u s t o d y

. F o r a m o r e c o m

p l e t e d i s c u s s i o n

, s e e G e o r g e A

. L o c k e

, C h a n g e i n C

i r c u m s t a n c e s J

u s t i f y i n g M o d i f i c a t i o n o f

C h i l d C u s t o d y O r d e r

, 6 P O F 2 d 4 9 9 ( 1 9 7 5 a n d S u p p

. 2 0 0 1 )

.

H o w e v e r

, a m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e d o e s n o t

a u t o m a t i c a l l y e q u a

t e w i t h a c h a n g

e i n c u s t o d y

. C u s t o d y m u s t

b e a r r a n g e d s o a s t o b e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d ( r e n )

o n a n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d b a s i s

. G i v

e n a l l t h a t h a s o c c

u r r e d s i n c e

t h e d i v o r c e

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n e e d s t o r e a s s e s s t h e w i s d o m o f

t h e d i v i d e d c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t i n l i g

h t o f t h e m a t e r i a l

c h a n g e s i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t h a v e o c c u r r e d

. A l t

h o u g h t h e

p a r t i e s a g

r e e d t o t h a

t a r r a n g e m e n t

, t h e y d i d s o u n d e r

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t n o l o n g e r e x i s t

. M o r e o v

e r

, t h e r e c o r d d o e s

n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s s e s s e d t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f

t h e a r r a n g

e m e n t a t t h e o u

t s e t

. W e a g r e e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

s h o u l d n o t h a v

e t o “ m i c r o

- manage” the custody arrangement

. The district court adopted a “PARENTAL COOPERATION”

standard in the initial d e c r e e a n d

, i n l i g h t o f t h e r a

t h e r s e r i o u s

p r o b l e m s f

a c e d b y t h i s f

a m i l y

, s o m e a d d i t i o n a l m a n a g e m e n t

, as suggested by the GAL, may well be in order. I t i s e v i d e n t

f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a

t t h e j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g s i n S h e r i d a n County had not yet ended when the d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e

order now before us. One gap in that process appeare d t o b e

an assessment of Mother’ s home. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t

h e children have expressed a p r e f e r e n c e a s t o w

h e r e t h e y w a n t t o

live, and the district court should take that into c o n s i d e r a t i o n

as well. I

t a l s o a p p e a r s t h a

t b y n o w t h e j u v

e n i l e m a t t e r i n

S h e r i d a n m a y h a v

e d e v e l o p e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a

t i s

p e r t i n e n t t o t h e m o s t d e s i r a b l e c u s t o d y a r r a n g e m e n t f o r t h e children and it is important for the district court to have a l l

that information available to it.

Id. , ¶¶ 12

- 13, 90 P.3d at 723

- 24 (emphasis added)

. Against this background

, w e t u r n t o a discussion of the issues presented in this appeal

.

[ ¶ 2 4 ] I n h i s f i r s t i s s u e

, F a t h e r c l a i m s t h a t o u r p r e c e d e n t r e l a t i n g t o m o d i f

i c a t ion of

c u s t o d y b a s e d o n a r e l o c a t i o n o f a custodial parent has addressed only those situations in

w h i c h t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t r e l o c a t e s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e

. H e s u g g e s t s we should hold, as a

m a t t e r o f f

i r s t i m p r e s s i o n

, t h a t a n i n

t e r s t a t e

, a s o p p o s e d t o a n i n t r astate, relocation by the

primary custodial parent may constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to

j u s t i f y a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y

. W e f

i n d n o m e r i t i n t

h a t s u g g e s t i o n

.19

[ ¶ 2 5 ] A s w e n o t e d i n L o v e

, i n w h i c h t h e m o t h e r r e l o c a t e d f

r o m S h e r i d a n

, Wyoming to

S i o u x F a l l s

, S o u t

h D a k o t a

,

With respect to the best interests of a child, state boundaries

are artificial and meaningless; there is no presumption that

bringing up a child in Michigan has any advantage (or

d i s a d v a n t a g e ) o v e r M i s s o u r i o r G e o r g i a

, o r a n y o t h e r s t a t e

. T o conclude otherwise would be a meaningless

g e n e r a l i z a t i o n

. R e s t r i c t i o n s u p o n w h e r e a c u s t o d i a l parent

m a y l i v e

, i n t e r m s o f g e o g r a p h y

, a r e n o t r e a l i s t i c

. In every

s t a t e t h e r e a r e g o o d a n d b a

d p l a c e s t o b r i n g u p a c h i l d

.

I d

. , 8 5 1 P

. 2 d a t 1 2 8 8

. T h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n h e r e n t i n t h e a c t o f c r o s s i n g s t a t e b o u n d a r i e s

t h a t i n f o r m s a determination as to whether ther e has been a “material change of

circumstances ” warranting a modification of child custody. A simple h y p o t h e t i c a l

illustrati on makes the point. An interstate relocation from Ja c k s o n

, W y o m i n g t o V i c t o r

, Idaho involve s a distance of 25 miles, whereas a n intrastate r e l o c a t i o n f r o m J a c k s o n t o

Cheyenne, Wyo ming, involves a distance of over 400 miles. I n d e t e r m i n i n g w

h e t h e r a

mater i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a s o c c u r r e d t h e i n t r a s t a t e / i n t e r s t a t e d i s t i n c t i o n i s meaningless.

[ ¶ 2 6 ] I n h i s s e c o n d i s s u e

, F a t h e r c l a i m s t h a t o u r p r e c e d e n t

, w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s a strong

p r e s u m p t i o n i n f

a v o r o f t h e r e l o c a t i n g p a r e n t

, d o e s n o t a d e q u a

t e l y a c c o u n

t f o r his

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o r a i s e h i s c h i l d r e n

. Father asserts that “The clear multi

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t r e n d i n r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s i s o n e t h a t f a v o r s a n a p p r o a c h t h a t b a l a n c e s t h e

f undamental constitutional rights of the par ties in order to arrive at a solu t i o n t h a t

respects the rights of both par ents , but holds paramount the best interests of the children.”

He urges us to follow this trend, and to overrule W att ’ s h o l d i n g t h a t a r e l o c a t i o n c a n n o t

by itself constitute a material change in circu mstances suffi cient to warrant c o n s i d e r a t i o n

of the best interests of the children

.

[ ¶ 2 7 ] M o t h e r r e s p o n d s b y a s s e r t i n g t h a t F a t h e r ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m w a s n o t r a i s e d

below and , consequently, should not be considered on appeal. In the alternative, M o t h e r

contends that w e should uphold Wyoming precedent pursuant to the doctrine of s t a r e

decisis

. She assert s that “Father does not have a [c] o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o r a i s e h i s c h i l d r e n

which is superior to Mother’s own [c] ons t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a s t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t

, ” a n d t h a t

“ [ t ] h e r i g h t o f [ M ] o t h e r t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h h e r c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r n e w f

a m i l i a l c o n f

i g u r a t i o n is important and should be respected.” Mother does not disp u t e t h a t m o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n s

follow the rule recognizing that a relocation may constitute a material chan g e o f

circumstances sufficient to justify a modification of custody

. She notes

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t

“our own l e g

i s l a t u r e h a s n o t a d o p t e d s t a t u t o r y p r e s u m

p t i o n s f o r o r a g a i n s t r e l o c a t i o n

, n o r has it determined that [] a noncustodial parent’s rights trump those o f a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t

. ”20

A s a c o r o l l a r y

, M o t

h e r a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t “ s h o u l d n o t a d o p t a n e w s t a n d a r d b a s e d o n

t h e e x a m p l e s o f o t h e r s t a

t e s a n d o ther, differing statutes.”

[ ¶ 2 8 ] A s a n i n i t i a l m a t t e r

, w e w i l l b r i e f l y address Mother’s claim that this issue shou l d

not be addressed because it was not raised in the district court. M o t h e r i s c o r r e c t t h a

t w e generally do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. N o d i n e v

. J a c k s o n Hole Mt. Resort Corp. , 2012 WY 72, ¶ 19 n.2, 277 P.3d 112, 117 n.2 (Wyo . 2012)

. I n the present case, however, Father’s arguments below clearly addressed t h e c o m p e t i n g parental interests at issue , as recognized by the district court:

I n t h i s c a s e

, [ F a t h e r ] p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t [ M o t h e r ’ s ] m o v e

t o V i r g i n i a w i l l u n d o u b t e d l y c h a n g e t h e n a t u r e o f h i s c l o s e

d a i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s d a u g h t e r s

. T h e C o u r t i s m o v

e d b y

,

a n d s y m p a t h e t i c t o

, [ F a

t h e r ’ s ] a r g

u m e n t

. B o t

h p a r t i e s a r e

t o p

- s h e l f p a r e n t s a n d [ F a t h e r ] a p p e a r s t o b e a n e x t r e m e l y

l o v i n g a n d v e r y p a r t i c i p a t o r y f

a t h e r

. T h e l a w i n W

y o m i n g a t

t h i s t i m e

, h o w e v

e r

, w e i g h t s m o r e i n f

a v o r o f a c u s t o d i a l

p a r e n t ’ s r i g

h t t o r e a s o n a b l y r e l o c a t e

, a n d l e s s i n f a v o r o f a

n o n

- c u s t o d i a l p a r e n

t ’ s r i g h t t o m a i n t a i n t h e s a m e v i s i t a t i o n situation and close relationship that may be fostered in the

absence of a move.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t i t i s b o u n d b y W

y o m i n g p r e c e d e n t

, a

n d t h a t

i t w a s r e q u i r e d t o follow this Court’s existing jurisprudence establishing a presu m p t i o n i n favor of the relocating parent. The continued viabilit y o f t h a t p r e c e d e n t i s p r o p e r

l y r a i s e d

in this appeal.

[ ¶ 2 9 ] A l t h o u g

h o u r j u r i s p r

u d e n c e recognizes a strong interest in adhering to past

p r e c e d e n t u n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a r e d e c i s i s

, w e h a v

e n o t e d t h a t d e p a r

t u r e from

p r e c e d e n t i s s o m e t i m e s a p p r o p r i a t e

. S L B v. JEO (In the Interest of ANO)

, 2 0 0 6 W Y 7 4

, ¶

6, 136 P.3d 797, 799 (Wyo. 2006). In considering whether to overrule a prior decision,

W e c o n s i d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a r e d e c i s i s t o b e a n importan t principle which furthers the “ e v e n h a n d e d

,

p r e d i c t a b l e

, a n d c o n s i s t e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f l e g

a l p r i n c i p l e s

, f o s t e r s r e l i a n c e o n j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s

, a n d c o n t r i b u t e s t o t

h e actual and perceived integrit y of the judicial process.”

N e v e r t h e l e s s

, w e s h o u l d b e w i l l i n g t o d e p a r t f r o m

p r e c e d e n t w h e n i t i s n e c e s s a r y “ t o v i n d i c a t e p l a i n

, o b v i o u s principles of law and remedy continued injustice.” W h e n

p r e c e d e n t i a l d e c i s i o n s a r e n o l o n g e r w o r k a b l e

, o r a r e p o o r l y reasoned, we should not feel compelled to follow precedent.21 S t a r e d e c i s i s i s a p o l i c y d o c t r i n e a n d s h o u l d n o t r e q u i r e

a u t o m a t i c c o n f

o r m a n c e t o p a s t d e c i s i o n s

.

I d

. ( q u o t i n g G o o d

r i c h v

. S t o b b e

, 9 0 8 P

. 2 d 4 1 6

, 4 2 0 ( W y o

. 1 9 9 5 ) )

. I

n l i g h t o f F a t h e r ’ s

contention that our precedent impinges on his fundamental parental rights a n d t h e r i g h t s of the state in providing for the best interests of the children, w e will p r o c e e d t o

reexamine our decision in Watt

.

[ ¶ 3 0 ] W e b e g i n o u r a

n a l y s i s b y i d e n t i f

y i n g the competing rights and interests at stake in

a c a s e i n v

o l v i n g m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f c h i l d c u s t o d y b a s e d o n t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f a custodial

p a r e n t

. F i r s t

, a s t h i s C o u r t p r o p e r l y r e c o g n i z e d i n W

a t t , the custodial parent has a right of

t r a v e l w o r t h y o f p r o t e c t i o n

. I d

. , 9 7 1 P

. 2 d a t 6 1 5

. I

m p o r t a n t l y

, h o w e v

e r

, t h e custodial

p a r e n t ’ s r i g

h t t o t r a v e l i s n o t t h e o n l y i n t e r e s t d e s e r v i n g o f p r o t e c t i o n i n r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s

. T h e m i n o r i t y t i m e p a r e n t i n a s h a r e d c u s t o d y a r r a n g

e m e n t h a s a n e q u a

l l y i m p o r t a n t

f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t o f f a m i l i a l a s s o c i a t i o n

. M

i c h a e l v

. H

e r t z l e r

, 9 0 0 P

. 2 d 1 1 4 4

, 1 1 4 7

( W y o

. 1 9 9 5 )

.

[ W ] e h a v

e r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t

, “ ‘ [ t ] h e r i g h t t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h

o n e ’ s i m m e d i a t e f

a m i l y i s a f

u n d a m e n t a l l i b e r t y p r o t e c t e d b y

t h e s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u

t i o n s

. ’

. . . R e s o l u

t i o n o f w h i c h

p a r e n t s h a

l l h a v e c u s t o d y n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i c a t e s t h e

f u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t o f f a m i l y a s s o c i a t i o n

. ”

F M L v

. T W , 2007 WY 73 , ¶ 6 , 157 P.3d 455, 459 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting L o g h r y v

. Loghry , 920 P.2d 664, 667 (Wyo. 1996)). Furthe r, j u s t a s p a r e n t s h a v e a f u n d a m e n t a l

right to associate with their children, “ C h i l d r e n h a v e a s f u n d a m e n t a l a r i g

h t t o f a m i l i a l

association [with their] parents. ” LM v. Laramie County Dep’ t o f F a m i l y S e r v s

. ( I n r e MN) , 2007 WY 189, ¶ 7 , 171 P.3d 1077, 1081 (Wyo. 2007)

.

[ ¶ 3 1 ] A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e s t a t e h a s a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r o m o t ing the best interests of

t h e c h i l d r e n

. M

i c h a e l

, 9 0 0 P

. 2 d a

t 1 1 4 9

. A s w e n o t e d i n C o s n e r v

. R i d i n g e r , 882 P.2d

1 2 4 3

, 1 2 4 7 ( W

y o

. 1 9 9 4 )

, t

h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d a r e o f “ p a r a m o u n t c o n c e r n ” i n

decisions relating to child custody:

W y o m i n g h a s a d o p t e d a s i t s p u b l i c p o l i c y a p a r a m o u n t

c o n c e r n f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h

c h i l d s u p p o r

t

, c u s t o d y

, a n d v

i s i t a t i o n

. T h a t p o l i c y i s

a r t i c u l a t e d i n W

Y O

. S T A T

. § 2 0

- 2

- 1 1 3 ( C u m

. S u p p

. 1 9 9 3 ) 2

,

2 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 113 has been repealed and replaced by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 201, et seq

. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20

- 2

- 201 retains the “best interests of the child” standard: “ I n g r a n t i n g a d i v o r c e

,22 w h i c h s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n

t p a r t :

( a ) I n g r a n t i n g a d i v

o r c e o r a n n u l m e n t o f a m a r r i a g e

,

t h e c o u r t m a y m a k e s u c h d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n a s

a p p e a r s m o s t e x

p e d i e n t a n d b e

n e f i c i a l f o r t h e w e l l

b e i n g o f t h e c h i l d r e

n

. . . . I f t h e c o u r t f

i n d s t h a t b o t

h

p a r e n t s h a v

e s h o w n t h e a b i l i t y t o a c t i n t h e b e s t

i n t e r e s t o f t

h e c h i l d

, t h e c o u r t m a y o r d e r a n y

a r r a n g e m e n t t h a t e n c o u r a g

e s p a r e n t s t o s h a r e i n t h e

r i g h t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f r e a r i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n

. . . . T h e c o u r t w h i c h e n t e r e d t h e d e c r e e h a s c o n t i n u i n g

s u b j e c t m a t t e r a n d p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n f

o r c e

o r r e v i s e t h e d e c r e e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y ,

v i s i t a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n a s t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p a r e n t s a n d t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e

c h i l d r e n r e q u i r e s

. . . . T h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r

e v i d e n c e o f s p o u s e a b u s e o r c h i l d a b u s e a s b e i n g

c o n t r a r y t o t h e b e s t i n

t e r e s t o f t

h e c h i l d

. ( E m

p h a s i s

a d d e d

. )

N o t a b l y

, i n C

o s n e r

, w e c i t e d M

a r t i n

, 7 9 8 P

. 2 d 3 2 1

, a n d L o v e

, 8 5 1 P

. 2 d 1 2 8 3

, i n s t a t i n g

t h a t “ O u r c a s e s e c h o t h i s o v e r r i d i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d i n c o n n e c t i o n with child support and custody determinations .” Cosner , 882 P.2d at 1248. I n Basol o v

. Basolo , 907 P.2d 348, 354 (Wyo. 1995)

, w e a g a i n e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t

h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f

the children are of overriding importance, and that they take precedence ov e r t h e

f undamental rights of parents:

I n t h e w r e c k a g e o f a n y m a r r i a g

e

, . . . v i n d i c a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l

rights shall not be l a v

i s h e d a t t h e e x

p e n s e o f t

h e “ p a r a m o u n

t

purpose” o f s e r v i n g t h e w e l f a r e a n d b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d

. Laughton v. Laughton

, 7 1 W y o

. 5 0 6

, 5 2 9

, 2 5 9 P

. 2 d 1 0 9 3

, 1 103 (1953). Recognition t h a t p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a r e f u n d a m e n t a l

d o e s n o t a l t e r t

h e c a r d i n a l r

u l e t h a t w h e n t h e r i g h t s o f a p a r e n t

a n d t h e r i g h t s o f a c h i l d c o l l i d e

, i t i s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r e n t

which must yield. Matter of MLM

, 6 8 2 P

. 2 d 9 8 2

, 9 9 0 ( W

y o

. 1984); Stirrett v. Stirrett

, 3 5 W y o

. 2 0 6

, 2 2 2

, 2 4 8 P

. 1

, 5

s e p a r a t i o n o r a

n n u l m e n t o f a m a

r r i a g e o r u

p o n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f p a t e r n i t

y p u r s u a n t t o W

. S

. 1 4

- 2

- 4 0 1

t h r o u g h 1 4

- 2

- 9 0 7

, t

h e c o u r t m a

y m a k e b y d e c r e e o r o r

d e r a n y d i s p o s i t i o n o f t

h e c h i l d r e

n t h a t a p p e a r s most expedient and in the best interests of the children. ”23 ( 1 9 2 6 )

.

S i m i l a r l y

, i n Stonham v. Widiastuti , 2003 WY 157, ¶ 17 n.8, 79 P.3d 1188, 1194 n

. 8

(Wyo. 2003)

, where mother sought to return to Indonesia with her children, we stated that

D e s p i t e t h e f

a c t u a l d i f

f e r e n c e s i n [ c u s t o d y c a s e s i n v o l v i n g

d i s t a n t r e l o c a

t i o n s ]

, t h e r e i s o n e c o m m o n a n a l y t i c a l t h r e a d i n

v i r t u a l l y e v

e r y c a s e : t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d i s p a r a m o u n t

i n a n y a w a r d o f c u s t o d y a n d v i s i t a t i o n

, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s

a l a r g e m e a s u r e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n m a k i n g t h a t a w a r d

. W h e t h e r

o n e p a r e n t i

s m o v i n g w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n a c r o s s t o w n o r

a c r o s s t h e w o r l d

, t h e a n a l y s i s r e m a i n s t

h e s a m e

.

( E m p h a s i s a d d e d

. )

[ ¶ 3 2 ] D e s p i t e t h i s c l e a r W y o m i n g a u t h o r i t y recognizing b o t h t h e m i n o r i t y t i m e p a r e n t ’ s right to parent and the state’s compelling interest in promoting the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e children in child custody cases, these interests did not r e c e i v e a t t e n t i o n o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n

in Watt . As noted above , this Court’s holding in Watt was very explicitly

, a n d

exclusively, g

rounded in the cus todial parent’s right to travel:

T h e c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l q u e s t i o n p o s e d i s w h e t h e r t h e r i g

h t s

o f a p a r e n t a n d t h e d

u t y o f t h e c o u r t s t o a d

j u d i c a t e c u s t o d y

s e r v e a s a p r e m

i s e f o r r e s t r i c t i n g o r i n h i b i t i n g t h e f r e e d o m t o

t r a v e l o f a c i t i z e n o f t h e S t a t e o f W y o m i n g a n d o f t h e U

n i t e d

S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a

. W e h o l d t h i s t o b e i m p o s s i b l e

. T h e r i g

h t

o f t r a v e l e n j o y e d b y a c i t i z e n c a r r i e s w i t h i t t h e r i g h t o f a

c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t t o h a v e t h e c h i l d r e n m o v

e w i t h t h a t p a r e n

t

. T h i s r i g h t i s n o t t o b e d e n i e d

, i m p a i r e d

, o r d i s p a r a g

e d u n l e s s

c l e a r e v i d e n c e b e f

o r e t h e c o u r t d e m o n s t r a t e s a n o t h e r

s u b s t a n t i a l a

n d m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e a n d

e s t a b l i s h e s t h e d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o f t h e m o v

e u p o n t

h e

c h i l d r e n

.

I d

. , 9 7 1 P

. 2 d a t 6 1 5

- 1 6

. I n W a t t

, w e s e e m e d t o m a r g i n a l i z e b o t h a p a r e n t ’ s a

n d a c h i l d ’ s right to f amilial association, as well as the s tate’s interest in the welfare of children, w h e n

we stat ed t

h a t “ t h e n o r m a l a n x i e t i e s o f a c h a n g e o f r e s i d e n c e a n d t h e i n

h e r e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s that the increase in geographical distance between parents imposes are not con side r e d t o

be ‘detrimental’ factors

. ” Id . at 616.

[ ¶ 3 3 ] A l t h o u g

h W a t t f o u n d t h a t t

h i s Court’s decision in Love h a d c r e a t e d “ a s t r o n g

p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e r i g

h t o f a c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t t o r e l o c a t e w i t h h e r c h i l d r e n

, ” w e

can discern no such presumption iss uing from that decision

. Rather, in Love

, 8 5 1 P

. 2 d a t24

1 2 8 7

, t h e C o u r t n o t e d t

h a t t h e g o a l t o b e a c h i e v

e d i n c h i l d c

u s t o d y c a s e s “ i s a r e a s o n a b l e

b a l a n c e o f t h e r i g

h t s a n d a f

f e c t i o n s o f e a c h o f t h e p a r e n t s

, w i t h p a r a m o u n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

b e i n g g i v e n t o t h e w elfare and needs of the children.” In addition

, noting that th e “ b e s t

interests” standard is applied in an initial custody determination, the Court stated t h a t

, i n

a modification case, “our review looks more closely at b a l a n c i n g t h e c o n t i n u e d r i

g h t s o f

th e parties with the best interests of the children as established at the time of divorce

. ”

Id.

, 8 5 1 P

. 2 d a

t 1 2 8 8 ( e m

p h a s i s a d d e d )

. I

n d e s c r i b i n g t h i s r e v i e w

, t h e C o u r t i d e n t i f i e d

additional, non

- exclusive factors that inform a determin ation as to whether m o d i f i c a t i o n

o f c u s t o d y i s w a r r a n t e d

, i n c l u d i n g “ t h e a t t r i b u t e s a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r e n t s a n d

c h i l d r e n a

n d h o w t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e f a r e d u n d e r t

h e o r i g i n a l c u s t o d y a n d v i s i t a t i o n

arrangement,” “the relocating parent’s motives for proposing the move

, ” a n d “ w h e t h e r

reasonable visitation is possible for the remaining parent. ” Id

. I m p o r t a n t l y

, n o t

h i n g i n that decision indicates that the custodial parent’s right to travel is entitled to a p r i v i l e g e d

position in “balancing the continued right s of the part ies. ” Indeed, the Court i m p l i c i t l y rejected a n y p r e s u m

p t i o n i n f

a v o r o f e i t h e r p a r e n t i n s t a t i n g t h a t “ C a s e s i n v o l v i n g

r e l o c a t i o n o f p a r e n t s a r e f a c t s e n s i t i v e ; w e w o u l d b e r e m i s s t o a t t e m p t t o d e f i n e a b r i g h t

line test for their determination.” Id. at 1 287.

[ ¶ 3 4 ] I n h o l d i n g t h a t a r e l o c a t i o n b y t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t c a n n o t

, b y i t s e l f

, c o n s t i t u t e a

m a t e r i a l c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f

f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n a l y s i s

, t h e W a t t

o p i n i o n c i t e d J

a r a m i l l o

, 8 2 3 P

. 2 d 2 9 9 a s s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y

. I

n t h a t c a s e

, the New

M e x i c o S u p r e m e C o u r t n o t e d t h a t “ I n N e w M e x i c o

, t h e p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d t h e r i g

h t t o

t r a v e l i n t h e c h i l d

- c u s t o d y c o n t e x t h a s b e e n e x

p l i c i t l y r e c o g

n i z e d b y b o t h t h i s C o u r t a n d

t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a

l s

, ” and found that a parent’s right to relocate sh o u l d n o t b e b u r d e n e d

by an adverse presumption against awarding custody to th e relocating parent. Id. at 305.

Importantly, however, Watt failed to recognize that the decision in Jaramillo p r o c e e d e d

immediately to state that “By the same token, we believe t h a t t h e o t h e r p a r e n

t ’ s r i g h t t o

m a i n t a i n h i s o r h e r c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n a n d f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t w i t h t

h e c h i l d s h o u l d b e e q u a

l l y

f r e e f r o m a n y u n f

a v o r a b l e p r e s u m

p t i o n t h a t w o u l d p l a c e h i m o r h e r u n d e r t h e b u r d e n o f

showing that the proposed removal of the chi l d w o u l d b e c o n t r a r y t o t h e c h i l d ’ s b e s t

interests.” Id. at 306. The c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t “ W e t h i n k t

h a t s u c h a p r e s u m

p t i o n i s

p o t e n t i a l l y j u s t a s i n i m i c a l t o t h e c h i l d ’ s b e s t i n t e r e s t s a s t h e o p p o s i t e p r e s u m p t i o n

favoring the relocating parent,” an d noted that

B o t h p r e s u m

p t i o n s a r e s u b

j e c t t o t h e f

o l l o w i n g c r i t i c i s m

l e v e l e d b y t h e U

n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t s e v e r a l y e a r s a g

o

a t “ p r o c e d u r e b y p r e s u m

p t i o n ” :

P r o c e d u r e b y p r e s u m

p t i o n i s a l w a y s c h e a p e r a n d e a s i e r

t h a n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n

. B u t w

h e n

, a s h e r e

,

t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r e c l o s e s t h e d e t e r m

i n a t i v e i s s u e s o f

c o m p e t e n c e a n d c a r e

, w

h e n i t e x

p l i c i t l y d i s d a i n s

p r e s e n t r e a l i t i e s i n d e f

e r e n c e t o p a s t f

o r m a l i t i e s

, i t25 n e e d l e s s l y r i s k s r

u n n i n g r o u g

h s h o d o v e r t h e i m p o r t a n t

i n t e r e s t s o f b o t h p a r e

n t a n d c h i l d

. I

t t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t

s t a n d

.

S t a n l e y [ v

. I l l i n o i s ]

, 4 0 5 U

. S

. [ 6 4 5

, ] 6 5 6

- 5 7

, 9 2 S

. C t

. [ 1 2 0 8

, ]

1 2 1 5 [

, 3 1 L

. E d

. 2 d 5 5 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ] ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

.

J a r a m i l l o

, 8 2 3 P

. 2 d a t 3 0 7

. E c h o i n g t h i s c r i t i c i s m

, t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t

h a t

[ W ] e b e l i e v

e t h a t a l l o c a

t i n g b u r d e n s a n d p r e s u m

p t i o n s i n t

h i s

c o n t e x t d o e s v i o l e n c e t o b o t h parents’ r i g h t s

, j e o p a r d i z e s t h e

true goal of determining what in fact is in the child’ s b e s t

i n t e r e s t s

, a n d s u b s t i t u

t e s p r o c e d

u r a l f o r m a l i s m f

o r t h e admittedly difficult task of determ ining, on the facts

, h o w

b e s t t o a c c o m

m o d a t e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f a l l p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e court, both parents and children.

I d

. a t 3 0 5 ( e m

p h a s i s i n o r i g

i n a l )

.

[ ¶ 3 5 ] W att ’s reference to Jaramillo f o r s u p p o r t i s e s p e c i a l l y c o n f u s i n g i n l i g

h t o f

Jaramillo ’s conclusion t

h a t “ I n a l m o s t e v

e r y c a s e i n w

h i c h t h e c h a n g

e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s

o c c a s i o n e d b y o n e p a r e n t ’ s p r o p o s e d r e l o c a

t i o n

, t h e p r o p o s e d m o v

e w i l l e s t a b l i s h t h e substantiality and materiality of the change.” Id. at 3 0 9

. I n a f o o t n o t e a c c o m

p a n y i n g t h i s

statement, the court noted that

W e d o n o t h o l d t

h a t a p r o p o s e d r e l o c a

t i o n c o n s t i t u

t e s a

s u b s t a n t i a l a n d m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s a m a t t e r

o f l a w

, b u t i t i s d i f

f i c u l t t o i m a g i n e a n i n s t a n c e i n w h i c h a

p r o p o s e d r e l o c a t i o n w i l l n o t r e n d e r a n e x i s t i n g p a r e n t i n g p l a n

o r c u s t o d y

- a n d

- v

i s i t a t i o n a r r a n g

e m e n t u n w o r k a b l e

. A s t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s n o t e d

, “ a d i s t a n t r e l o c a t i o n b y o n e p a r e n

t w i l l

i n e v i t a b l y t r i g g e r a c h a n g

e o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s

- - t h e i n a b i l i t y o f

the parties to imple ment their parenting agreement.”

I d

. a t 3 0 9 n

. 9 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

.

[ ¶ 3 6 ] I n T r o p e a

, 665 N.E.2d 145 , New York’s highest court also rejected the u s e o f

presumptions in relocation cases:

[ I ] t s e r v e s n e i t h e r t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n n o r t h e e n d s o f

j u s t i c e t o v

i e w r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s t h r o u g h t h e p r i s m s o f

p r e s u m p t i o n s a n d t

h r e s h o l d t e s t s t h a

t a r t i f i c i a l l y s k e w t h e

a n a l y s i s i n f

a v o r o f o n e o u t c o m e o r a n o t h e r

.26 . . . [ I ] n a l l c a s e s

, t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d b e f r e e t o c o n s i d e r a n d

g i v e a p p r o p r i a t e w e i g

h t t o a l l o f t h e f

a c t o r s t h a t m a y b e

r e l e v a n t t o t h e d e t e r m

i n a t i o n

. T h e s e f

a c t o r s i n c l u d e

, b u t a r e

certa inly not limited to each parent’ s r e a s o n s f o r s e e k i n g o r

o p p o s i n g t h e m o v

e

, t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n

the child and the custodial and noncustodial p a r e n t s

, t h e impact of the move on the q u antity and quality of the child’ s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degre e t o which the custodial parent’ s and child’ s l i f e m a y b e e n h a n c e d

e c o n o m i c a l l y

, e m o t i o n a l l y a n d e d u c a t i o n a l l y b y t h e m o v

e

, and the feasibility of preserving the relat i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e

n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t a n d c h i l d t

h r o u g h s u i t a b l e v

i s i t a t i o n

arrangements.

I d

. , 6 6 5 N

. E

. 2 d a t 1 5 1

. S e e a l s o

, E l r o d

, s u

p r a ¶ 12, at 356 (noting that “ T h e c l e a r t r e n d

in the United States seems to be to abandon presumptions and to adopt a ‘ b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f

the child’ t e s t t h a

t r e q u i r e s b o t h p a r e n

t s t o p r o v e t h a t t h e i r p o s i t i o n i s i n t h e c h i l d ’ s b e s t

interests .”).

[ ¶ 3 7 ] The approach to modification of custody based on a relocation of a custodial

p a r e n t t a k e n i n J

a r a m i l l o a n d e c h o e d i n T

r o p e a was also adopted by the Supreme Court

o f C o l o r a d o i n I

n r e M a r r i a g e o f C i e s l u k

, 1 1 3 P

. 3 d 1 3 5

. I

n t h a t c a s e

, t he court

c o n s i d e r e d

, a

n d r e j e c t e d

, t h e a p p r o a c h t a k e n i n W

a t t :

[ T h e W a t t ] approach is no different in practice than the

a p p r o a c h i n [ I

n r e M a r r i a g e o f ] F r a n c i s [

, 9 1 9 P

. 2 d 7 7 6 ] that

we now reject because it effects a presumption in favor of a

c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t s e e k i n g t o r e l o c a t e

. F u r t h e r m ore, it is

c o n t r a r y t o C o l o r a d o ’ s p r e f e r r e d s t a t e p o l i c y e m

p h a s i z i n g a

f a c t

- d r i v e n a p p r o a c h i n r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s

. S e e § 14

- 1 0

-

1 2 9 ( 2 ) ( c )

. F i n a l l y

, i t i g

n o r e s t h e r i g

h t s o f t h e m

i n o r i t y t i m e

p a r e n t

. F o r t

h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e d e c l i n e t o a d o p t t h i s a p p r o a c h

i n C o l o r a d o

.

C i e s l u k

, 1 1 3 P

. 3 d a t 1 4 3

. T h e c o u r t a l s o d e c l i n e d t o a d o p t t h e M i n

n e s o t a a p p r o a c h

, a s s e t

f o r t h i n L a C

h a p e l l e v

. M

i t t e n ( I n r e L

. M

. K

. O

. )

, 6 0 7 N

. W

. 2 d 1 5 1 ( M i n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 0 )

,

w h i c h “ e l e v

a t e [ s ] the child’ s welfare to a compelling state interest, thereby obviating t h e need to balance the parents’ c ompeting constitutional rights. ” Ciesluk

, 113 P.3d at 143

. The Ciesluk court reasoned :

Thou gh consideration of the parents’ c o m p e t i n g

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i s i m

p o r t a n t i n r e l o c a t i o n c a s e s

, t h e27 c o n f l i c t i s not simply between the parents’ needs and desires.

See Baures v. Lewis , 167 N.J. 91, 770 A.2d 214, 2 2 9 ( N

. J

. 2001). Rather, the issue in relocation cases is t h e e x t e n t t o which the parents’ n e e d s a n d d e s i r e s a r e i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h t h e

child ’ s best interests. See id

. T h u s

, r e l o c a t i o n d i s p u t e s present courts with a unique challenge: to promote the b e s t

in terests of the child while affording protection equally

between a majority time parent’ s right to travel a n d a

m i nority time parent’ s right to parent

.

I d

. , 1 1 3 P

. 3 d a t 1 4 2

. W

att ’s approach to the issue of relocation

, e l e v a t i n g t h e r i g

h t t o

travel over co mpeting interests, has also been criticized in Fredman v. Fredman

, 9 6 0

So. 2d 52, 58 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2007 ) (noting that Watt “ f a i l s t o t a k e i n t o consideration the other parent’s fundamental right to parent ”) and Braun v. Headley

, 7 5 0

A.2d 624

, 632 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) ( n o t i n g t h a t m o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e

role of the right to travel in relocation cases “ h o l d t h a t t h e r i g

h t t o t r a v e l i s q u a l i f

i e d

, a n d

must be subject to the state’s compelling interest in protecting the best intere s t s o f t h e

child ,” and that “ O nly one case, W att , finds a ‘best interests’ a n a l y s i s i n s u f f i c i e n t

r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t a

l r i g h t t o t r a v e l

, a n d h o l d s t h a t t h e t h r e s h o l d r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a

m aterial change of circumstances exists, which triggers the best i n t e r e s t a n a l y s i s

, c a n n o t

be established merely by proving relocation of the custodial parent .”).

[ ¶ 3 8 ] O n f

u r t h e r e x a m

i n a t i o n o f W

a t t

, w e f i n d t h a t i t s exclusive focus on the custodial

p a r e n t ’ s r i g

h t t o t r a v e l i s n o t s u p p o r t e d b y o u r e a r l i e r p r e c e d e n t

, a n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n

, i n

h o l d i n g t h a t a r e l o c a t i o n

, b y i t s e l f

, c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

,

u n j u s t i f i a b l y e l e v a t e s t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t ’ s r i g h t t o t r a v e l o v e r t h e c o m

p e t i n g i n t e r e s t s o f

the minority time parent and the state ’s concern f or the best interests of the child.

A l t h o u g h a c u s t o d i a l p a r e

n t ’ s r i g h t t o t r a v e l i s e n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n

, t h i s i n t e r e s t m

u s t b e weighed against the minority time parent’s right to maintain a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d

frequent contact with his or her child ren. Further, because the goal in custody cases is t o reach an arrangement that promotes t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n

, t h e r i g h t s o f b o t h

parents must be considered only to the extent that they are consistent with that goal.

Ultimately, we agree wi th the conclusion reached in other jurisdictions t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n s in favor of one parent or another are detrimental to the interests of all parties in case s involving mo dification of child custody based on relocation of a custodial parent

.

[ ¶ 3 9 ] W e n o t e t h a t o u r c o n c l u s i o n that a relocation may constitute a material change in

c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o e s n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s j u d i c a t a in determining

w h e t h e r m o d i f

i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y i s w a r r a n t e d

. Clearly, a move by a custodial parent,

especiall y w

h e n t h e d i s t a n c e f

r o m t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r e n t i s s i g n i f i c a n t

, m a y c r e a t e “ n e w issues framed by facts differing from those existing when the original de c r e e w a s

entered

, ” which preclude the application of res judicata. T hese new facts may include a change in the ability of the parties to maintain the existing parenting agreement, a c h a n g e28

i n t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o m a i n t a i n a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g p a r e n t

, f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g q u a l i t y o f l i f

e i n t h e n e w l o c a t i o n

, t

h e c h i l d ’ s g

e o g r a p h i c p r e f

e r e n c e

, a n d

t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t s o f a v a i l a b l e s o c i a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e n e w l o c a t i o n

. O n t h i s p o i n t

, w e a g

r e e w i t h t h e V e r m o n t S u p r e m e C o u r t

, w h i c h h a s s t a t e d that “ w

h e n

childrearing and its concomitant decision

- making are shared, reloc a t i o n t o a r e m o t e

l o c a t i o n b y o n e p a r e n t r e q u i r e s a t t h e v e r y l e a s t a r e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e c u s t o d i a l

arrangement a n d

, b e c a u s e o f t h e p r a c t i c a l i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n s h a r e d p a r e n t i n g

, w i l l o f t e n necessitate a change in custody. ” Hoover v. Hoover , 764 A.2d 1192

, 1194 (Vt. 2000).

[ ¶ 4 0 ] I n s u m m a r y

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t W att ’s prohibition against consider ing relocation a s

a f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o e s n o t p r o p e r l y a c c o u n t f o r

the minority time parent’s right to associate with his or her fa m ily, t h e c h i l d ’ s r i g

h t t o

familial association

, or the state’s “ p a r a m o u n t c o n c e r n ” f o r p r o m o t i n g t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s

of the children. W ith this decision, we explicitly recognize that a relocation by t h e primary physical custodian , as well as “factors that are derivative of the relocation”

–

i n c l u d i n g “ t h e i n h e r e n

t d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n parents imposes”

– m a y c o n s t i t u t e a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f

f i c i e n t t o

warrant consideration of the best interests of t he children. T o t h e e x t e n t t h i s c o n f

l i c t s

with th is Court’s holding in Watt , we hereby overrule Watt

.

[ ¶ 4 1 ] Further, b a s e d o n t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

, w e f i n d t h a t M o t h e r ’ s r e l o c a t i o n t o Virginia, over 2,000 miles away from Father, constitutes a mat erial c h a n g e i n

circumstances. As we have previously noted, however, “ a m a t e r i a l c h a n g e o f

circumstance does not automatically equate with a change in custody.” JRS

, ¶ 1 3

, 9 0

P.3d at 724. We note that the district court was able to consider a great deal of e v i d e n c e

b e a r i n g o n t

h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t

h e c h i l d r e n i n a

d d r e s s i n g t h e i s s u e o f w

h e t h e r t h e r e h a

d

been a material change in circumstances. O u r c o n c e r n i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t v i e w e d

this evidence through the prism of the presumption in favor of the re locat ing

, c u s t o d i a l

parent that we created in W att

. I n l i g h t o f t h e district court’s e m p h a s i s o n t

h i s presumption, which no longer applies , we are unable to determine how the a b s e n c e o f

such a presumption would have impacted the district court’s decision

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e

remand for further consideration of this issue w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a

t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t

consider all relevant facts and circumstances i n d e t e r m i n i n g a p r o p e r c u s t o d i a l

arrangement that is in the best interests of the children. Because F a t h e r i s t h e p a r t y seeking the modification of the custodial arrangement

, he has the evidentiary b u r d e n o f

e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c u s t o d y i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t

h e c h i l d r e n

. 3 W e

m u s t e m p h a s i z e

, b y t h i s d e c i s i o n

, w e a r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r e s u l t

. W e a r e o n l y

3 Although some courts have determined that both parents share equally the burden of demonstrating how

a child’s best interests will be served in the relocation, we do not adopt that approach in this case. See,

e.g., I n re Marriage of Ciesluk

, 113 P.3d at 147 ; Jaramillo , 823 P.2d at 308.29

r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e d e t e r m

i n a t i o n b e m a d e b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l s t a n d a r d

.

[ ¶ 4 2 ] In light of our decision, we need not address Father’s third is s u e p e r t a i n i n g t o

visitation. We reverse and remand for further procee dings consistent with this opinion.