Opinion ID: 3172528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Status Quo

Text: [¶23] Mother contends that the status quo−the shared custody arrangement the parties had when they both lived in Cheyenne−was a material factor deserving significant weight, and the district court abused its discretion in failing to give the factor consideration. This argument finds no support in the record. [¶24] The district court did in fact give consideration to the parties’ existing arrangement. In rejecting that arrangement as a workable option, the court explained: It is abundantly clear to this court that the existing custody arrangement, with both parties equally splitting parenting time with the child, will no longer work in light of [Mother’s] imminent relocation to Colorado. This court must therefore undertake an analysis of the factors set forth in W.S. § 20-2- 201 and fashion an appropriate custody/visitation schedule that will take into consideration what is in A.D-N’s best interests. [¶25] The record supports the district court’s reasoning. Mother did testify that she was moving to Colorado regardless of the court’s custody ruling. Q. Okay. If you moved to Colorado, you plan – let’s talk about that. You plan to move to Colorado? 10 A. Yes, I do. Q. We heard testimony earlier today that you plan to make that move, even if the court is not favorable to your position, correct? A. Yes. [¶26] The parties’ status quo custody arrangement had the parties alternating weekends and changing custody of ADN throughout the school week. As the district court observed, that is not a practical arrangement if the parties live hours away from each other. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s rejection of the status quo as a custody option.