Opinion ID: 884825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the District Court err by alternating custody every two years?

Text: ¶ 42 Both Tammy and Micheal argue on appeal that the trial court erred in ordering that the children's primary physical custody be alternated every two years. At the outset, we note that Micheal did not request this sort of relief in his petition nor did either party approach this case before the trial court on the premise that custody should be shared on a biennial basis. More importantly, the record is void of any evidence that would support the District Court's conclusion that this sort of custodial arrangement would be in D.M.G.'s and T.J.G.'s best interests. In fact, the evidenceat least in the general terms in which it was presented by Dr. Levotiis to the contrary. We conclude that, on the record here, the court abused its discretion in requiring custody of the children to be alternated between Micheal and Tammy every two years.