Opinion ID: 880172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: stai\dard ofreview

Text: Child custody determinations made by a magistrate court are reviewed by this Court under an abuse of discretion standard. schneider v. schneider, l5l Idatro 415,420,25g p.3d 350 355 (2011) (citing Hoskinsonv. Hoskinson, 139 Idaho 448,454,80 p.3d 1049, 1055 (2003). Under this standard of review, the Court asks first whether the magistrate court correctly perceived the custody issue as one of discretion; then whether the magistrate court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to the court; and frnally, whether the magistrate court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. schultz v. schultz, 145 Idaho g59, g6l-62, lg7 P -3d, 1234, 1236-37 (2008). An abuse of discretion is found when the magistrate court's findings are clearly erroneous such that the court's findings are not based on substantial and competent evidence. schneider, l5l Idaho at 420,25g p.3d at 355. ln a decision regarding a custody award or modification, [a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the evidence is insufficient to support a magistrate's conclusion that the interests and welfare of the children would be best served by the magistrate court's order. Nelson v. Nelson, l44Idaho 710, 713, 170 p.3d 375, 378 (2007). For issues involving the introduction of evidence, this Court also reviews the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. stare v. Perry, 139 Idaho s20, s2l, gl p.3d 1230, 1231 (2003). The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and to determine whether a witness is qualified as an experr. Id. at 521-22,81 p.3d at 1231-32. Enor may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence ur ess the ruling is a manifest abuse of the trial court's discretion and a substantial right of the party is affected. Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., 127 ldaho 565,574,903 p.2d 730,739 (lgg1\. [I. ANALYSIS A, The magistrate court's order of child custody was not an abuse of discretion. The first issue that we address regards the magistrate court's order concluding that C.C.'s primary residence should be in Pocatello, and the custody arrangement based on that conclusion. Tracy argues that the magistrate court created a custody schedule that promoted estrangement between C.C. and his mother and deprived her child of the solid bond that was formed berween the two during the first years of C.C.'s life. Charles argues that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion because it made a decision based on the best interest of the child. We find that the magistrate court's order was not an abuse of its discretion. For determinations of custody, a magistrate court is required to base its decision on the best interesrs of the child. schultz, 145 Idaho at 962, lg7 p.jd at 1237 (.,the best interest of the child is of paramount importance in custody determinations). Idaho code section 32-717(l)(a)- (g) sets out a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors that a magistrate court may consider. This list includes the wishes of the child's parents as to custody; the child's wishes for custody; the interaction and interrelationship between the child and parents, and siblings if applicable; the child's adjustment to his or her community; the character and circumstances of all involved; the need to promote continuity and stability for the child; and any instance of domestic violence.l I.C. $ 32-717(l)(a)'(g). This list offactors is not exhaustive or mandatory and courts are free to consider other factors that may be relevant. Bartosz v. Jones, l46ldaho 449, 4s4. 1g7 p.3d, 310' 315 (2008). Additionally, the preference for the mother as custodian over the father of a child of'tender years is considered only where all other considerations are found to be equal. Moye v. Move, 102 Idaho 170, 172-73, 627 p.zd,799,801-02 (1981). The magistrate oourt considered each one ofthe factors set out in r.c. S 32-717(l) with findings and conclusions for ' No allegations ofdomestic violence between the parties are present in this case. each listed factor. The magishate court concluded that it would be in the best interest of the child to remain in Idaho with C.C.'s parents sharing custody. The magistrate court reasoned that the temporary living anangements that followed separation were not in the child's best interest, and that it was the court's responsibility, not the parents, to examine where c.c. should live in the future. Finding that the mother did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in C.C.'s best interest to move to Reno, the court concluded that it was in the best interest of the child to remain in the Pocatello area where the father relocated for the benefit of C.C. As to the parents' wishes, the court concluded that: [T]he wishes of the parents are inconsistent, are not supported by the evidence and . . . their wishes and proposals do not promote the best interests of the child. The parents' wishes and proposals for custody do not really assist the court in determining the child's best interests other than the fact that the father is apparently willing to share custody with the mother if she remains in Idaho. Shared custody in Pocatello would be the best choice for C.C. As for the child's wishes, the magistrate court found that the child was too young to make a clear indication ofa custodial preference to assist the court. The rnagistrate court concluded that the interrelationship between the child and parents, and the child's adjustment to home, school, and community favored shared custody in Idaho because a move to Reno with Tracy would not have a positive effect on C.C.'s relationship wilh Charles. Also, the magistrate court reasoned that the proposed move fiom Ely to Reno by Tracy would be to a community unknown to c.c., whereas, C.C. had spent most of his life in Pocatello, and was already familiar with Charles'new home and the child care providers in Pocatello. C.C. would be unfamiliar with the sgnomdings if Tracy moved to Reno. The conclusions for the promotion of continuity and stability in c.c.,s life also focused on Tracy relocating to Reno. The magistrate court reasoned that custody in Pocatello would promote more continuity and stability in C.C.'s life because of familiariw with the area-a stable known environment.', The factor that gave the magistnte court the most concem was the character of the parties and circumstances surrounding the case. Finding that Tracy had demonstrated a tendency to withhold access to their child and that her emotional response to the separation hindered her ability to think and act as a shared-custodial parent, the magistrate court stated a hope that Tracy could focus on the emotional needs ofthe child, and not her own, to allow for a successful shared custody arrangement. The court concluded that both parents were very capable of being loving parents for C.C. and that the analysis of the best interests of the child indicated that the ideal arrangement would be living in Pocatello with both parents nearby to share an overnight custody rotation. Custodial alternatives were constructed in hopes of relieving the parties from further court hearings in the futwe in the event that Tracy did not immediately retum to pocatello. The magistrate cout's order shows that it considered all relevant evidence in the record and applied relevant factors to make a decision based on the best interests of C.C. The order does not suggest that the magistrate court was separating the child from Tracy or was trying to damage the relationship and bond between the two as Tracy argues. The magistmte court's order illustrates that the magistrate judge was trying to make the best decision available to ensure a significant relationship continued to exist between c.c. and rracy, as well as charles. Tracy's argunents do not go beyond analysis of the total amormt of days that each parent would receive with C.C. under the altemative plans and do not contain any citation to authority that would require the magistrate court to divide the time evenly (or to the benefit of the mother) regardless of the hardship to the child. As we have often stated, a shared physical custody has no predetermined visitation ratio but is driven by statutory analysis, best interests of the child, and finally the court's reasoned discretion. Idaho code g 32-7178(2); King v. King, l3z Idaho 43g, 445. 50 P.3d 453 .460 (2002). According to the magistrate judge, the best option was to have the child reside in Pocatello with both parents living in the are4 but he also understood that this option may not be available immediately and, therefore, specified altemative arrangements. For this court to find that an abuse of discretion has occurred in a custody award, the record must be void of evidence to support the magistrate court's conclusion that the custody award served the best interests of thechild. schultz, l45Idahoat863, l87p.3dat 1238 (citingMoyev. Moye,lo2 Idaho 170.172. 627 P.2d'799,801(1981)). Under ldaho law, it is presumed that a continuing relationship with both parents is in the child's best interest. Id. at g65, lg7 p.3d at 1240. The record and the magistrate court's order reflect that the custody flrangement was created with the child,s best interests in mind, attempting to achieve a continuing relationship with both parents. The magistrate court reflected on each of the relevant factors listed in I.C. 32-717(l) $ in its order and did not over-emphasize any one factor. see id. at g63,lg7 p.3d at 123g. The custodial a,Tangement was within the magistrate court's discretion and was consistent with applicable legal standards. Also' the facts and legal analysis in the magistrate court's order indicates that the decision was reached through an exercise of reaso& and there was sufficient evidence to support the magistrate court's conclusion. Therefore, we find that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion by ordering shared child custody based on c.c. residing in pocatello. B. The magistrate court's custody determination did not infringe on Tracy,s liberty interests to choose where to live, work, and raise her son. Next' we address Tracy's argument regarding whether the magistrate court's