Opinion ID: 2570311
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patricia's proposed move to Minnesota

Text: Bernard argues that the superior court erred in finding that Patricia's reasons for moving to Minnesota were legitimate and that the court failed to consider the effect of the move on the children. [10] We have held that a proposed move is legitimate if it was not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation ... more difficult. [11] The superior court found that Patricia's reasons for the move were legitimate ones related to the nature of the graduate program at the University of Minnesota and the availability of family support while she returned to school. This finding is supported in the record. Patricia testified that she is particularly interested in Native American issues and that the University of Minnesota has one of the only social work programs in the country whose core curriculum includes courses focusing on this subject. By contrast, the director of the School of Social Work at the University of Alaska Anchorage testified that her program does not have a concentration in American Indian groups and does not offer many courses related to Alaska Native studies. Patricia also testified that if she moved to Minnesota her extended family would help care for the children when she is in class and that she would be able to live at her parents' house without paying rent, thereby freeing her from the necessity of getting a job and permitting her to spend more time with the children. We have previously accepted the intent to attend graduate school out of state and the desire to be closer to extended family as legitimate reasons for a move. [12] Bernard contends that Patricia's desire to move despite his offer to provide financial assistance for day care if Patricia were to pursue her degree at the University of Anchorage indicates that the move is intended to frustrate his visitation with the children. But this argument ignores the academic advantages of the Minnesota program and the legitimate benefits of having extended family nearby. Bernard also argues that Patricia's statements that she would not move to Minnesota if it meant giving up custody of the children suggests illegitimate motives for the move. But it is perfectly reasonable for a devoted parent to condition his or her move plans on maintaining custody of the children; we explicitly recognized this possibility in Moeller-Prokosch I. [13] The superior court did not clearly err in finding that Patricia's reasons for moving to Minnesota are legitimate. Bernard also argues that the superior court failed to consider the impact of the proposed move on the children. He appears to argue that the court should have concluded that the proposed move was not in the best interests of the children, pointing to Dr. Turner's testimony that it would be preferable for the children to have regular and consistent involvement with both parents. But under our reasoning in Moeller-Prokosch I, the proper inquiry is not whether the move itself is in the best interests of the children, but what custody arrangement is in their best interests assuming the move will take place. [14] The superior court properly assumed that the move would take place and considered whether the children would be better off moving with Patricia to Minnesota or staying in Alaska with Bernard. The court recognized that the move will certainly have an impact on the children's relationship with the Father, but determined, based in part on Dr. Turner's expert testimony, that granting primary custody to Patricia was in the children's best interests. Bernard points out that the superior court's statement that he has strong family ties to the Duluth area because he has family within one hundred miles is incorrect. [15] This error is harmless. In making its custody determination, the court did not assume that Bernard would move to Minnesota; the court determined that Patricia should have custody despite the negative effects of separating the children from their father. It is highly improbable that the superior court would have assessed the impact of the move differently but for this factual error.