Opinion ID: 874443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It is unclear whether the magistrate court perceived the custody determination before it as an issue of discretion.

Text: It is unclear whether the magistrate court perceived the question before it as one of discretion. Its order states: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Order Requiring Defendant Return Minor child to Idaho Jurisdiction or in the Alternative Grant Plaintiff Temporary Custody is hereby granted. 2. Pursuant to Hopper v. Hopper, 2007 Ida. LEXIS 61 (Idaho 2007)[sic] RHONDA RAE SCHULTZ (hereinafter Rhonda) is ordered to return the minor child SYLVIA SUSAN SCHULTZ, (hereinafter Sylvia) to Idaho jurisdiction within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. 3. Should Rhonda refuse to return to Idaho with Sylvia, Rhonda shall be ordered to relinquish custody of Sylvia to KENNETH DEAN SCHULTZ within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. This order does not discuss the standard under which the magistrate considered the motion, and it does not show that the court understood that granting or denying Kenneth's motion was within its discretion. At most, this order cites to the Hopper case, which in turn lays out the discretionary standard for determining child custody issues and makes clear that the best interest of the child is of paramount importance in custody determinations. See 144 Idaho at 626-27, 167 P.3d at 763-64. Nonetheless, the court's citation to Hopper could also demonstrate that it believed the order was mandated by the holding in Hopper. Indeed, it appears from the whole of the order that the magistrate believed that Hopper removed his discretion. As such, the magistrate court abused its discretion.