Opinion ID: 4561150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: We have said that parental relocation issues are among the most difficult that courts face. 5 That is true here. For this reason, such determinations are matters initially entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge, and the trial judge’s determination is to be given deference. 6 Framework for Removal Decisions [4,5] Before we address Ryan’s specific arguments, we first recall the legal framework governing the removal of a minor child to another jurisdiction. In order 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. 7 After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child’s best interests to continue living with him or her. 8 The 2 State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See, e.g., Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529, 843 N.W.2d 655 (2014); Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242, 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999). 6 Steffy v. Steffy, supra note 5. 7 Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, 288 Neb. 240, 847 N.W.2d 79 (2014). 8 Id. - 74 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 purpose of requiring a legitimate reason for leaving the state in a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction is to prevent the custodial parent from relocating the child because of an ulterior motive, such as frustrating the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights. 9 [6,7] In considering a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the paramount consideration is whether the proposed move is in the best interests of the child. 10 In determining whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, the trial court considers (1) each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move; (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent; and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and the noncustodial parent, when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 11 [8] Fundamental constitutional rights underlie this framework. The custodial parent has the right to travel between states and the right to migrate, resettle, find a new job, and start a new life. 12 Both parents, custodial and noncustodial, have the constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of their children. 13 Ryan does not assert that the district court employed the wrong framework. Instead, he quarrels with its application to the facts of this case. Legitimate Reason for Removal Ryan first argues that the district court erred in finding that Rashell had a legitimate reason for moving to another 9 Steffy v. Steffy, supra note 5. 10 Id. 11 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 264 Neb. 232, 647 N.W.2d 577 (2002). 12 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969), overruled on other grounds, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974). 13 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000). - 75 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 jurisdiction. He contends that we have never “found that a parent’s desire to relocate to a spouse’s temporary job relocation is a legitimate reason to relocate with the minor child.” 14 [9-11] We have long held that an award of custody to a parent should not be interpreted as a sentence to immobility. 15 Thus, we have held that career advancement of a new spouse is a legitimate reason to remove a child to another jurisdiction. 16 Another legitimate reason is the desire to form a new family unit through remarriage. 17 Both reasons factor into the situation here. We disagree with Ryan’s characterization of Rashell’s reason for moving as a temporary job relocation. Chubb, a member of the Missouri National Guard, was called to active service in the U.S. Army and deployed to a base near Washington, D.C. This activation and deployment is mandatory and not in any sense voluntary. It is true that this aspect of his job will end after 1 year. But many job opportunities involve a risk of transfer after only a short period. And at the end of the 1-year deployment, he clearly intends to continue his military career as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot. 14 Brief for appellant at 18 (emphasis omitted). 15 See, Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, supra note 7; Vogel v. Vogel, 262 Neb. 1030, 637 N.W.2d 611 (2002); Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70 (2000); Harder v. Harder, 246 Neb. 945, 524 N.W.2d 325 (1994); Sabatka v. Sabatka, 245 Neb. 109, 511 N.W.2d 107 (1994); Demerath v. Demerath, 233 Neb. 222, 444 N.W.2d 325 (1989); Hicks v. Hicks, 223 Neb. 189, 388 N.W.2d 510 (1986); Vanderzee v. Vanderzee, 221 Neb. 738, 380 N.W.2d 310 (1986); Boll v. Boll, 219 Neb. 486, 363 N.W.2d 542 (1985); Gotschall v. Gotschall, 210 Neb. 679, 316 N.W.2d 610 (1982). 16 See, McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, supra note 11; Vogel v. Vogel, supra note 15; Harder v. Harder, supra note 15; Demerath v. Demerath, supra note 15. 17 See, Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, supra note 7; Jack v. Clinton, 259 Neb. 198, 609 N.W.2d 328 (2000); Harder v. Harder, supra note 15; Gerber v. Gerber, 225 Neb. 611, 407 N.W.2d 497 (1987); Maack v. Maack, 223 Neb. 342, 389 N.W.2d 318 (1986). - 76 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 While Chubb’s immediate job placement is time limited, the job- and matrimonial-related reasons for removal are permanent. He has a career plan based upon military service. Rashell desires to join him in this military life. He knows that he will return to Missouri for demobilization. But there, the chances are “slim to none” that he could return to the schedule which made commuting from Lincoln possible. We cannot say that the desire to live a normal life with his family near the location of his job is illegitimate. Likewise, Rashell’s desire to live with her new spouse at that job location is a legitimate reason for removal of the child from Nebraska. Best Interests Under the framework set forth above, Rashell had the burden to show that it was in the child’s best interests to continue living with her. 18 As we have already noted, Ryan quarrels only with the weight accorded by the court to the evidence bearing on the factors prescribed by that framework. Ryan emphasizes the “temporary nature of the relocation.” 19 But as we have already explained, the relocation is permanent in the sense that the family will not be returning to Lincoln. Above, we set forth the district court’s analysis in considerable detail. Here, the deference we accord to the court’s factual findings becomes important. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s best interests analysis. Removal Beyond Washington, D.C. Ryan argues that the district court erred in granting an “openended” right to relocate the minor child first to Washington, D.C., and then to Chubb’s next job location. 20 To support this argument, he tenders two rationales. One lacks merit but the other is valid. 18 Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin, supra note 7. 19 Brief for appellant at 24. 20 Brief for appellant at 26. - 77 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 In one rationale, Ryan challenges the district court’s order as a void conditional order, “to the extent” the court “granted Rashell permission to relocate to wherever [Chubb] finds another job.” 21 In making this argument, he relies upon our decision in Vogel v. Vogel. 22 [12] There, we relied on two related propositions. If a judgment looks to the future in an attempt to judge the unknown, it is a conditional judgment. A conditional judgment is wholly void because it does not “perform in praesenti” and leaves to speculation and conjecture what its final effect may be. 23 Applying those principles, we vacated provisions of a removal order which (1) imposed a new schedule for physical possession of the children “in the event [the mother’s spouse] is transferred overseas and [the mother] elects to join him” and (2) dictated a new visitation schedule “in the event [the mother and the father] establish residences within 50 miles of one another.” 24 In both instances, the Vogel orders were to become effective only upon the happening of certain future events which might or might not occur. Whether the orders would ever have become effective was speculative. Here, however, the district court’s final order did not include similar language. Instead, this order simply stated that Rashell was “granted leave to remove the minor child from the State of Nebraska and to determine his primary place of residence.” It did not, as Ryan contends, state any location to which such permission extended. To the extent that the court’s first order can be read to incorporate Rashell’s prayer into its relief, the final order expressly states that it “shall supersede and control.” The final order may have been carefully crafted to avoid the use of conditional language. But in avoiding that pitfall, it ran afoul of another principle. 21 Id. at 27. 22 Vogel v. Vogel, supra note 15. 23 Id. 24 Id. at 1038-39, 637 N.W.2d at 619. - 78 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 [13] In the other rationale, Ryan argues that the district court’s order violated a standard articulated by the Nebraska Court of Appeals in Maranville v. Dworak. 25 There, after obtaining the trial court’s permission to move the children to Illinois, followed by an unsuccessful appeal by the noncustodial parent, the custodial parent sought further permission to move the children to Ohio, based upon her spouse’s job change. The trial court granted that permission. On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the standard for approval of a motion to remove a child to another jurisdiction applies both when a custodial parent seeks to move a child from Nebraska to a different state and in considering a subsequent move to yet another state. 26 [14,15] Although the Court of Appeals did not say so, we believe that this standard derives from a more fundamental principle: The authority to determine custody and visitation cannot be delegated, because it is a judicial function. 27 And we restate that principle in the specific context of a parental relocation: A court cannot delegate to a custodial parent, who has obtained permission only for removal of a child from Nebraska to one state, the authority to move the child to yet another state without permission. Here, because the authority to determine custody and visitation is a judicial function, it cannot be delegated to Rashell. Rashell responds that the district court’s order expressly gave her permission to “relocate with Ryley to Fort Belvoir, and also subsequently to relocate in accordance with known 25 Maranville v. Dworak, 17 Neb. App. 245, 758 N.W.2d 70 (2008). 26 Id. 27 See, VanSkiver v. VanSkiver, 303 Neb. 664, 930 N.W.2d 569 (2019); Ensrud v. Ensrud, 230 Neb. 720, 433 N.W.2d 192 (1988), disapproved on other grounds, State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., supra note 2; Deacon v. Deacon, 207 Neb. 193, 297 N.W.2d 757 (1980), disapproved on other grounds, Gibilisco v. Gibilisco, 263 Neb. 27, 637 N.W.2d 898 (2002); Lautenschlager v. Lautenschlager, 201 Neb. 741, 272 N.W.2d 40 (1978). - 79 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 employment opportunities to either Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, or Fort Rucker, Alabama.” 28 But one has only to read the order to see that this is not so. The order below does not undertake comparisons to Missouri or Alabama or make any findings regarding those locations’ advantages or disadvantages in the best interests framework. Of course, we recognize that a court cannot make bricks without straw. Rashell failed to present evidence regarding those locations. Her evidence focused on Fort Belvoir. That limited the information available to the district court. Even if she had furnished detailed information on both locations in Missouri and Alabama, her strategy would have failed. The court below could not have crafted an order permitting a move to the location of Rashell’s or Chubb’s choice without either employing a void conditional order or improperly delegating judicial authority. The court’s order supported the move to Fort Belvoir, but nothing more. We modify the order to make it clear that the permission granted to remove Ryley from the State of Nebraska extends only to move him to Fort Belvoir, in the State of Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Denial of Ryan’s Request for Custody Finally, Ryan argues that the district court erred in not finding a material change of circumstance such that Ryley’s best interests required custody to be placed with him. This assignment lacks merit. As Ryan’s argument makes clear, it is founded upon his contention that the court erred in granting permission for Rashell to relocate Ryley to Fort Belvoir. He relies upon our decision in Tremain v. Tremain. 29 There, the trial court denied permission to move the child, but changed custody without determining whether the custodial parent would relocate to Nebraska 28 Brief for appellee at 26. 29 Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 (2002). - 80 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE ON BEHALF OF RYLEY G. v. RYAN G. Cite as 306 Neb. 63 in order to retain custody of the children. On appeal, we reversed the order changing custody and remanded the cause for further proceedings to ascertain whether the custodial parent would relocate. [16] But here, we have determined that the district court properly granted Rashell permission to move with Ryley to Fort Belvoir. Thus, the premise underlying Ryan’s argument failed. Removal of a child from the state, without more, does not amount to a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. Nevertheless, such a move, when considered in conjunction with other evidence, may result in a change of circumstances that would warrant a modification of the decree. 30 Here, there is no other evidence that would warrant a modification of the judgment.