Opinion ID: 1305252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Denial of Leave to Relocate Children

Text: To prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999); Harder v. Harder, 246 Neb. 945, 524 N.W.2d 325 (1994). If a legitimate reason is shown, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that removal is within the child's best interests. Id. Whether a proposed move is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, supra ; Evenson v. Evenson, 248 Neb. 719, 538 N.W.2d 746 (1995). In determining whether a proposed relocation is in the child's best interests, trial courts should consider each parent's motives for seeking or opposing the move; the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent; and the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and the noncustodial parent, viewed in the light of reasonable visitation arrangements. See Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, supra . The trial court's determination in this case was made prior to the release of our opinion in Farnsworth. The trial judge determined that Teresa had not established that the best interests of the minor children would be achieved by moving them to a location in Canada approximately 1200 miles from Keith County, Nebraska. Noting that Teresa had resided in the United States on a nearly continuous basis since she was 14 years of age, except for a period of 1½ to 2 years immediately following her graduation from high school, the court determined that she had made no investigation as to educational or employment opportunities either in Keith County or elsewhere in Nebraska as an alternative to relocation. The court further determined that the relationship between Kelly and his family and the children would be seriously jeopardized if Kelly were able to see the children on only two or three occasions per year, and noted that the expert called by Teresa testified that it would be best if both parents can co-parent and remain active in the children's lives. The trial court did not make a specific finding as to whether Teresa had established a legitimate reason for her proposed relocation. In reviewing this question de novo, it appears her principal reasons for wishing to relocate to Canada are her desire to be near her extended family and her plan to pursue educational and employment opportunities there. While it is true that she did not investigate educational opportunities in Nebraska and conducted only a limited investigation of employment opportunities in this state, we have never required a custodial parent to exhaust all possible job leads locally before securing a better position in another state. Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, supra . We have also stated that absent some aggravating circumstance, such as an ulterior motive to frustrate the noncustodial parent's visitation rights, significant career enrichment is a legitimate reason for relocation in and of itself. Id. We conclude that Teresa's firm offer of employment with a flexible schedule in close proximity to her extended family constitutes a legitimate reason for her proposed relocation to Canada. We therefore focus our de novo review on whether she has established that such relocation would be in the best interests of the children, a question which the trial court resolved in the negative. In assessing each parent's motives, we conclude that both Teresa and Kelly have valid motives for taking their respective positions on the issue of relocation. Teresa's reasons for relocating are as stated above, and there is no indication that she seeks to frustrate Kelly's visitation rights. Kelly, on the other hand, has legitimate concerns about the effect relocation across an international boundary and 1,200 miles from his home would have on his relationship with his children and, in particular, his ability to maintain regular and frequent contact with them. The motives of each party are thus equally balanced. As to the potential which the relocation holds for enhancing the quality of life of Teresa and her children, pertinent factors include: (1) the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of the children; (2) the children's opinions or preferences as to where to live; (3) the extent to which the custodial parent's income or employment will be enhanced; (4) the degree to which housing or living conditions would be improved; (5) the existence of educational advantages; (6) the quality of the relationship between the children and each parent; (7) the strength of the children's ties to the present community and extended family there; (8) the likelihood that allowing or denying the move would antagonize hostilities between the two parents; and (9) the living conditions and employment opportunities for the custodial parent because the best interests of the children are interwoven with the well-being of the custodial parent. See Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). Although there is evidence that the move could potentially enhance the children's standard of living, it is not overwhelming. Moreover, any potential enhancement would be dependent to a great extent upon the children's ability to adapt to new surroundings, new friends, and an extended family with whom they have never had a relationship other than periodic visits. The likelihood of a successful adaptation by all of the children is difficult to predict. We conclude that the question turns on the third Farnsworth consideration, i.e., the impact of relocation upon the ability of Kelly to maintain a meaningful relationship with his children. In Farnsworth, we noted that while a move from Omaha to Denver would necessarily lessen the frequency of visits with the child, the distance between the two cities was not one which would prevent the noncustodial parent from seeing his child on a regular basis. The same cannot be said of the distance between Ogallala, Nebraska, and Camrose, Alberta, Canada. The greater distance, less direct travel connections, and the significant expense and time involved in traveling between the two locations are significant factors which the trial court properly considered. As we stated in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. at 255, 597 N.W.2d at 601: Parental relocation issues are among the most difficult issues that trial courts face in postdivorce proceedings. Once broken by divorce, a family cannot be put back together in precisely the same way. Among other things, the relationships between the child and each of the parents and the parents to each other are necessarily different. As such, it is often difficult for courts to balance the noncustodial parent's accustomed close involvement in a child's everyday life with the custodial parent's chance to embark on a new or better life or to form a new family unit. It is for this reason that such determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge, and the trial judge's determination is to be given great deference absent an abuse of discretion. Based upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the children because of its potential negative impact upon their relationship with Kelly.