Opinion ID: 2626169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Determination of the Travel or Relocation Restriction

Text: [¶ 32] In the parties' negotiated Agreement, as ratified and included into the Decree, Mother and Father agreed to the following residency provision: [Mother] agrees to maintain a residence during the term of this agreement in Thermopolis or within five miles of Thermopolis, although [Father] has no objection if [Mother] moves from Thermopolis during her non-residential years. [¶ 33] At the trial, Mother sought to have the residency provision removed because it adversely impacted her constitutional right to travel or relocate. Watt v. Watt, 971 P.2d 608, 615-616 (Wyo.1999); Love v. Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1286-89 (Wyo.1993); Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52, 55 (Wyo.1995); Resor v. Resor, 987 P.2d 146, 151 (Wyo.1999); Testerman, ¶ 18, 193 P.3d at 1146; Harshberger v. Harshberger, 2005 WY 99, ¶ 12, 117 P.3d 1244, 1250-51 (Wyo.2005). After trial, the district court ordered: That the residency provision set forth in the prior agreement is hereby lifted and any issues of residency of the parents would need to be addressed through a future modification proceeding. [¶ 34] Mother asserts that, despite the court's removal of the residency provision, her right to relocate is nonetheless violated, since the shared custody arrangement still provides for visitation by the non-custodial parent on alternating weekends and for two evenings per week. She claims that this visitation provision exerts pressure upon her to remain in the locality in derogation of her rights because relocation is not recognized as a change in material circumstances warranting modification of a custody order. [4] We disagree with Mother's assertion. [¶ 35] There is nothing in the shared custody and visitation plan or in the order lifting the residency requirement which unconstitutionally requires, or exerts pressure upon, either parent to reside in the same locality. Moreover, Mother is incorrect in her contention that Wyoming case law prevents judicial review of a request to modify a custody and visitation order after a parent relocates: To summarize, our precedent is quite clear that relocation, by itself, cannot be a substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reopening a custody order. That precept is also applicable to any factors that are derivative of relocation. What Mother has failed to acknowledge in her argument, however, is that our precedent does not preclude the district court from considering the effects of relocation on the children so long as there is some other circumstance that is sufficiently deleterious to the welfare of the children that by itself ... would serve as a substantial and material change in circumstances even in the absence of a relocation. Watt, 971 P.2d at 617; see Gurney, 899 P.2d at 55 (Where a custody order was properly reopened because both parties asserted that joint custody was not working, district court could have reasonably concluded that factors derivative of the relocation could have contributed to parties' inability to agree and communicate.). Furthermore, our cases stress that the rule set forth in Love and its progeny is predicated upon the motivation for the relocation being in good faith. Love, 851 P.2d at 1288-89 (So long as the court is satisfied with the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move ... removal should be granted.); Watt, 971 P.2d at 614 ( Love and Gurney together capture a rule that a relocation by a custodial parent, where the motivation for the relocation is legitimate, sincere, in good faith, and still permits reasonable visitation by the non-custodial parent, is not a substantial and material change in circumstances.). Harshberger, ¶ 12, 117 P.3d at 1250-1251. [¶ 36] The district court properly removed the residency provision from the shared custody plan. The district court was justified in including visitation in the custody arrangement as being in the children's best interests. No abuse of the trial court's discretion occurred and it committed no procedural errors.