Opinion ID: 2181602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The father's Motion for Modification of Custody and Visitation.

Text: Following the entry of Order No. 1, the father filed a motion for a stay of that order. On March 2, 2000, the trial judge denied the motion. [5] On March 22, the father appealed from Order No. 1, but as previously noted, he has never pressed this appeal. Instead, on March 31, 2000, the father filed what he termed a Motion for Modification of Custody Caused by Change of Circumstances. The father alleged in his motion that Myriam's relocation would cause him hardship because he lacked the financial means to visit Myriam in Oregon. The father claimed that the move would interfere with his opportunity to maintain a positive nurturing relationship with his child. He requested the court, inter alia, to modify its visitation order to allow for the following: If the temporary relocation to Portland, Oregon exceeds two months, th[e]n the [father] would be allowed visitation in the form of physical custody of Myriam for alternating two-month periods. The father offered to pay for Myriam's transportation if the court adopted his proposal. On April 18, 2000, in Order No. 2, the trial judge denied the father's motion on the following grounds: For a party [sic] to modify a custody order, that party must demonstrate a substantial and material change in circumstances and that such modification is in the best interest of the child. D.C.Code § 16-911(a-2)(4)(A). Due to Defendant's failure to show any substantial and material change in the child's circumstances, the Motion must be denied. The judge thus evidently construed the motion as claiming that there had been a substantial and material change of circumstances since February 17, 2000, when Order No. 1 was issued. The father, on the other hand, was arguing that there had been such a change of circumstances since the prior visitation arrangement (which was based on the mother's residence in North Carolina and which predated Order No. 1) had been in effect. In any event, Order No. 2 left in place Order No. 1's suspension of the father's visitation rights.