Opinion ID: 2581842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arguments on Appeal and Summary of Our Decision

Text: A. Faith argues that the superior court did not comply with our remand instructions in the following respects: 1. The modified joint legal custody order had the same effect of preventing her from moving as the prior decree that we vacated; 2. The court, in ordering an automatic shift in physical custody to Chuck if Faith chose to move to Florida, did not, a. Truly assume that the move would take place, b. Determine whether her motives for the move were legitimate, c. Consider all relevant statutory factors. B. Faith also contends that the court should not have contingently changed physical custody without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Chuck did not file a brief on appeal. We do not agree with Faith's conclusion under A.1. But we substantially agree with arguments A.2.a. and b. These conclusions moot the remaining arguments. But on remand the court should hold an evidentiary hearing as to developments occurring since the original trial, and should consider all relevant statutory factors.