Opinion ID: 880172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: t'actual and procedural background

Text: Charles and Tracy were married on November lg, lgg3, in Ely, Nevada. C.C., the parties' only natwar ch'd, was bom in 2007, in Reno, Nevada. In June 2010, the parties separated near the time that charres took a new job as a physician in Moscow, Idaho, after serving his residency in Pocatello, Idaho, at the Family Practice Residency Department at ldaho State University. upon separation, Tracy and c.c. moved to Ely, Nevad4 to live with her parents. charles filed a complaint for divorce on July 19, 2010, in Barurock co'nty, rdaho, claiming irreconcilable differences. Tracy frled a complaint for divorce in Latah County, Idaho, on July 22,2010, citing irreconcilable differences pursuant to I.c. g 32-603(s). The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the complaints into the case in Bannock County and ageed to heat Tracy's complaint as a counterclaim. During this period, the magistrate court filed an order prohibiting the parties from removing the child from the state without leave of the court. This order was not observed by Tracy, nor sought to be enforced by charles. on January rg,20lr, the magistrate court agreed to the parties' stipulation and filed an order allowing Linwood Vereen, Ph.D. to perform a custody evaluation for tle determination of the best custody arrangement. Four months later the magishate court set the matter for trial, and in June 2011, granted the parties a decree of legal separation. In the time between the initial filings and the date of trial, the magistrate court agreed to several stipulations between the parties for monthly custody arrangements. The trial took place June 1-3, and July 2l-22,2011. The magistrate court filed its Findings of Fact conclusions of Law and order on August 16, 20[. The magistrate judge found that Tracy has a B.s. in Engrish fiom weber state university and a B.s. in English Education from Utah valley State college, with certifications to teach, and teaching experience, in both Idaho and Nevada. Tracy's teaching experience included a two-year, full-time position at Pocatello High school. Next, the court found that Tracy had appried for teaching positions in Nevad4 and before the trial, received an offer from a school in Reno that she intended to accept. The magistrate judge arso found that Tracy intended to remain a resident of Nevada and have c'c' reside primarily with her. Finany, the court found that after the separation, Tracy had motivational issues for several months; that during separation, she had..limited the father,s access to the child and . . - made arranging visits between father and son more difficult than it should have been; and that in Tracy's opinion, c.c. suffered from separation anxiety and should not be away from her for visits as long as the father had proposed. As for charres, the magistrate court found that he had purchased a home in pocatello, three blocks from the public school c.c. would begin to attend; that he had paid the majority of costs for support, debts, and obrigations during the separation; and that he had proposed to pay asum for ch d support larger than what was required of him if Tracy would relocate to Pocatello and share custody with him on a weekly basis-a proposal that was rejected by Tracy. The court firther stated: The father has sacrificed financially to be able to spend time with his son and to be a part of his son's life. The father gave up a job in Moscow, Idaho to move closer to [C.C.]. He gave up a $40,000.00 bonus to move to Moscow and take the position he had, $30,000.00 of which he and the mother received and spent and which he must repay. He gave up student loan debt forgiveness that would have erased approximately $223,000.00 in student loan debt over the next eight years. The Moscow position was in an underserved rural area and his position in Pocatello is not. He will not receive student loan debt forgiveness in Pocatello. He gave up an annual salary of $225,000.00 to take a faculty position with Idaho State University for an annual salary of $ I 56,000.00. The counselor that performed the custody evaluation for the parties, Linwood Vereen, Ph.D., LPC, testified at trial. His evaluation was based on interviews with the parents, parentchild observations, home visits, and discussions with contacts provided by the parties. Dr. Vereen testified that both parents were effective and had demonstrated a loving relationship with c.c. Dr. Vereen's testimony regarding recommendations for parenting time and the best interests of the child were not permitted into evidence pursuant to I.R.E. 702 for lack of foundation. The parties did not stipulate that he could offer expert opinion testimony at trial. The magistrate court divided the community property and debts pursuant to an agreement between the parties and held that it was in the best interests of the child to remain in Idaho under a shared custody arrangement. Based upon a finding that Tracy did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in C.C.'s best interest to move to Nevada with her. the magistrate court created a custody arrangement with alternative plans depending on Tracy's decision whether she would relocate to the pocatello area. First, if rracy rehrmed to the Pocatello area within 120 days of the court's order, the custody would be shared on a 65/j5o/o basis in favor of rracy, with charles paying $1,016 in monthly child support. Next, if Tracy retumed after four months, but within a year, the physical custody would be evenly split between the parties, and charles would be required to pay $677 per month in child support. Finally, if Tracy remained in Nevad4 a custody agreement would be structured around c.c. staying with his father during the school year and with his mother during the summer months, with the mother paying a child support payment of $244 per month. A judgment and decree of divorce was filed on August 16,2011, reflecting these provisions for the legal and physical custody. The parties had conflicting interpretations of the court's order, and subsequent to a hearing, the magistrate entered amended filings on August 25, 2011, making clear that the custody option fot a 65l35Vo split would begin at the time of Tracy's arrival in Pocatello. Tracy filed a motion to stay portions of the amended judgmen! seeking to allow c.c. to stay with her until she could find work in the Pocatello area and save up enough money to relocate; she also asked that the radius for relocating be extended beyond Pocatello to Twin Falls. Subsequent to a posdudgment hearing held at the behest of Tracy, the magishate court filed a second amended order and judgment. The magistrate court addressed some of the mother's previously stated concerns including a clerical enor and changing all references to the child from the child's first and last name to c.c. The magistrate court also amended the dates to allow Tracy an additional month to retum to Pocatello fot the 65/35%o custody split as she had already leased a home in Reno, and the winter break at the school from which she accepted a teaching position did not begin until the day after the initid 120 day deadline. Tracy timely appealed from the seconded amended judgment to the Supreme Court.