Court Opinion

ID: 9514127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:41.898737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:12.451358
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 20] I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately to note that while we affirm the trial court’s order modifying the parenting schedule, that order is interlocutory when a motion to change primary residential responsibility is also pending. Should the motion for a change in primary residential responsibility be granted a new parenting schedule would be necessary. Ordinarily, when a motion to modify the parenting schedule and a motion to modify primary residential responsibility are both pending, the motion to modify primary residential responsibility should be decided before the motion to modify the parenting schedule is decided. Here, the trial court denied the motion to change primary residential responsibility and granted the motion to modify the parenting schedule. Both matters are therefore before us on appeal. Thus, although today we affirm the change in the parenting schedule, our affirmance is necessarily subject to the trial court’s determination of primary residential responsibility on remand.
[¶ 21] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.