Opinion ID: 2581842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failing To Determine Whether Faith's Motives Were Legitimate

Text: In our instructions on remand, we emphasized the need for the trial court to make a determination as to whether Faith had legitimate reasons for moving. [16] But the court addressed this issue only casually and ambiguously. It stated that the need to promote an open, loving, frequent relationship with Chuck is not a priority enough for [Faith] to make the self-sacrifice to stay where she really doesn't want to stay for reasons that are certainly at least partly legitimate. As we noted, a proposed move is legitimate if it `was not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation ... more difficult.' [17] The court's remark does not resolve this issue. Notwithstanding that the court did not resolve the issue of whether Faith's motives for moving to Florida were legitimate, the court found the move to be a negative factor against Faith and in favor of Chuck in making its best interests determination. As we have indicated in today's opinionbut not clearly in our earlier opinionit is impermissible to count Faith's move to Florida as a negative best-interests factor personal to Faith if her reasons for moving are legitimatethat is, if the move is not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation more difficult. If, on the other hand, Faith's reasons are not legitimate, the court must take this finding into account in its best-interests analysis. [18]