Title: CASEY v. CASEY
Citation: 2002 OK 70, 58 P.3d 763
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2002

CASEY v. CASEY Annotate this Case CASEY v. CASEY 2002 OK 70 58 P.3d 763 Case Number: 96697 Decided: 09/24/2002 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROCKY CASEY, JR., Plaintiff/Appellee v. TAMMY CASEY, now Compton, Defendant/Appellant CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II Honorable Thomas M. Bartheld, Trial Judge ¶0 In 1995, the plaintiff/appellee, Rocky Casey, Jr. (father/non-custodial parent), and the defendant/appellant, Tammy Casey (mother/custodial parent), divorced. Subsequently, the trial judge, Honorable Thomas M. Bartheld, entered a modification order prohibiting either parent from removing children of the marriage from Pittsburg County, Oklahoma for residency purposes. In January of 2001, both parents filed motions to [58 P.3d 764] modify. The father sought custody and the mother asked that she be allowed to move from Oklahoma with her children to take advantage of an employment opportunity. Although he recognized that the mother was a fit custodian, the trial judge denied her motion to modify except to the extent that she could relocate within the confines of the state. The trial judge further ordered that if the mother removed the children from Oklahoma for residency purposes, custody would be awarded to the father. The mother filed a second motion to modify which was heard in July of 2001. Despite the presentation of testimony that the children would benefit educationally from the move, the trial judge found the mother's evidence insufficient to support an award of custody if she moved out of state. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The custody issue is governed by the Court's pronouncements in Kaiser v. Kaiser, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Lauren LeBlanc Day, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant Wesley Brown, McAlester, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The primary issue presented is whether the defendant/appellant, Tammy Casey (mother/custodial parent), agreed by all parties to have demonstrated a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, must forfeit the right to travel on threat of the loss of her children. Secondarily, we are asked to determine whether a judicial balancing of the equities supports an award of appeal-related attorney fees. Pursuant to binding precedent FACTS ¶2 The mother and father were married in 1984, and had two children a son, J.W.C., born on May 29, 1989, and a daughter, S.R.C., born on May 31, 1991. The couple divorced in February of 1995. The mother was awarded custody of the two minor children. A year later, the trial judge, Honorable Thomas M. Bartheld, entered a modification order amending the father's visitation schedule and prohibiting either parent from removing the children from Pittsburg Coun-[58 P.3d 765] ty, Oklahoma for the purpose of permanent residency without court approval. ¶3 In January of 2001, both the father and the mother filed motions to modify. The father sought custody of the children, then 11 and 9 years of age, respectively. The mother asked to remove the children from Oklahoma so that she might take advantage of an employment opportunity that would benefit the family unit and requested a change in the father's visitation schedule. ¶4 For over six years, the mother had been working as a purchasing/office manager for Wabash (employer), commuting between 80 and 90 miles a day, to Checotah, Oklahoma at an annual salary of $26,500.00. Her company extended her a job offer which required that she move to Indiana for a salary of $37,500.00 approximately a 42% increase. Along with the offer of a raise, the mother was informed that Wabash's Oklahoma plant would be closing and that the employer would have no job for her within the state. In anticipation of having to obtain other employment, the mother made inquiries concerning job opportunities finding nothing in Pittsburg, Muskogee or McIntosh Counties comparable to the $26,500.00 she had been earning. ¶5 At the initial modification hearing held on February 9, 2001, the mother testified that she planned to locate in Kokomo, Indiana a community of about 40,000. The mother investigated the school system in Kokomo and was prepared to make arrangements for the children both before and after school. She also testified that she and the children planned, if her modification request were granted, to stay temporarily with Paul Limpkey (Limpkey) a gentleman the mother had been dating for an extended period of time. ¶7 The father presented one witness, a teacher from the Crowder schools, who testified generally that students who are transferred between school districts often experi-[58 P.3d 766]-ence a period of adjustment ¶9 The mother filed a second motion to modify on April 24th, 2001, requesting that the trial court review its February order. In a hearing on the motion on May 30th, the trial judge indicated that he had not intended to revisit his ruling unless the mother chose to move. Nevertheless, he agreed to order a transcript of the February proceedings and [58 P.3d 767]to set another hearing once he'd had the opportunity to read the testimony. During these proceedings, the mother's attorney stated that the Wabash plant had closed in Oklahoma and that the mother had a second job offer in Indiana. Concerned about how the mother's investigation of the job might affect custody, he elicited an agreement from opposing counsel that the mother's cause would not be prejudiced if she went to Indiana until the case was heard in July. ¶11 Because she could no longer work from home, following the May 30th proceedings, the mother went to Indiana temporarily. However, she did not move in with Limpkey as she had formerly planned. Rather, the mother signed a three month lease on an apartment. Further, she testified that she had no plans to move in with Limpkey or to marry him should the trial court grant her motion to modify. ¶12 While in Indiana, the mother located a person her daughter could work with training as a barrel racer a sport she enjoys in Oklahoma. She also investigated the Kokomo school's curriculum, finding it superior to the one in the Crowder schools. There were also additional extra-curricular activities available in Indiana which her children had not enjoyed in Oklahoma both before and after school. ¶13 John Duff (Duff), the Caseys' son's teacher testified at the July 9th hearing on behalf of the mother. Duff believed that the Caseys' son was very well adapted, outgoing and exceptionally smart. He never observed anything in the son indicative of emotional problems. Duff compared the Crowder and Kokomo curriculums. Although he found some comparisons, he felt the Kokomo schools' enrichment programs for exceptional students like the Caseys' son would be very beneficial. Duff was confident that the son would have no difficulty adjusting in the Kokomo school district or anywhere else he might be enrolled. ¶15 The journal entry of judgment was filed on August 1, 2001, granting the father's demurrer to the evidence and keeping in place the trial court's February 9th order requiring that the mother give up her children if she moved out of state. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the trial court and the mother filed certiorari on April 15, 2002. We granted certiorari on July 3, 2002. I. ¶16 THE CAUSE IS GOVERNED BY THE COURT'S PRONOUNCEMENTS IN KAISER v. KAISER AND ABBOTT v. ABBOTT HOLDING THAT WHERE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IS FIT AND THERE IS NO RISK OF REAL AND SPECIFIC HARM TO THE CHILD, THE DECISION TO RELOCATE THE FAMILY RESTS WITHIN THE CUSTODIAL PARENT'S AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S APPROVAL. ¶17 The mother asserts that governing precedent Kaiser v. Kaiser, ¶18 In both Kaiser and Abbott, supra, this Court acknowledged that the decision of the custodial parent to move is not the dispositive issue in modification proceedings. Rather, the focus is on the fitness of the custodial parent and the potential that the child will be placed at risk of real and specific harm while living at the new location. If the parent is fit and there is no evidence of prejudice to the child, Kaiser and Abbott clearly place the decision to relocate within the parent's ambit. Further, the cases recognize that, absent prejudice to the rights or welfare of the child, the custodial parent's decision to change the child's residence is guaranteed by statute. ¶22 These parents have been before the trial court on several occasions some of which may have understandably tested the patience of the trial judge. ¶23 We are mindful that the appropriate standard of review in a custody modification is abuse of discretion. II. ¶24 NO COMPELLING OR OVERRIDING EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS ARE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT AN AWARD OF APPEAL-RELATED ATTORNEY FEES. ¶25 The mother argues that because she clearly should have prevailed in the trial court and because she has been forced to remain in Oklahoma, placing her employment in jeopardy, that the equities support an award of appeal-related attorney fees. Although the father does not specifically respond to this request, the record does not reveal a large disparity between the two individuals' annual salaries ¶26 Appeal-related attorney fees are recoverable if statutory authority exists for their award in the trial court. CONCLUSION ¶28 Our decisions in Kaiser v. Kaiser, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. ¶29 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.[58 P.3d 772] FOOT