Court Opinion

ID: 9514112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:28.628807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.916749
License: Public Domain

MARING, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 15] I specially concur in the result reached by the majority. I do agree with the majority’s conclusion that a parent with joint physical custody must bring both a motion to change custody and a motion to relocate. However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis and its reliance on and application of Maynard v. McNett, an opinion in which I did not participate. 2006 ND 36, 710 N.W.2d 369. When a parent with joint physical custody of a child wishes to relocate, the trial court must first determine the best interests of the child require a change in primary physical custody to that parent and then must analyze the motion to relocate under the Stout-Hawkinsm factors. See, e.g., Kienzle v. Yantzer, 2007 ND 167, ¶¶ 11-12, 740 N.W.2d 393 (holding the father had primary physical custody not joint physical custody and therefore the court did not err in failing to first decide whether the best interests of the child require a change in primary physical custody before deciding whether to allow the relocation).
[¶ 16] Garry Dunn and Michelle Dunn stipulated to joint custody of their two youngest children when they divorced. Garry Dunn moved for both a change of primary custody and relocation after he received a job offer in Wyoming. The trial court correctly first decided whether a modification of custody was appropriate before it considered the motion to relocate because the parties shared joint custody. See id.; Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 54, n. 7, 560 N.W.2d 903 (“We recognize that there are cases in which the parents, pursuant to a final decree, share physical custody equally and an original determination of primary custody may be necessary in a motion to relocate by one parent.”). After making that decision in favor of Garry Dunn, the trial court correctly proceeded to decide whether to allow the relocation of the children to Wyoming under the Stout-Hawkinson factors.
[¶ 17] A trial court may modify custody after the initial two-year period following the date of entry of an order establishing custody if a material change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or parties and the modification is necessary to serve the best interest of the child. N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6). We have previously set forth our analysis in a modification proceeding:
A court’s analysis in considering whether to modify custody differs from its analysis when awarding original custody. *492For a determination of an original custody award, only the best interests of the child are considered. But, when a party is seeking to modify a custody arrangement, a court applies a two step process. A trial court must determine: 1) Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances following the divorce and custody determination, and 2) Wfiiether the changes of circumstances effect [sic] the child in such an adverse way that it compels or requires a change in the existing arrangement to further the best interests of the child.
Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236, ¶ 12, 724 N.W.2d 565; Siewert v. Siewert, 2008 ND 221, ¶ 19, 758 N.W.2d 691 (stating “[i]f the court finds there has been a material change in circumstances the court must also consider whether the change is so adverse to the child’s best interests that custody should be modified.”).
[¶ 18] Therefore, the trial court must first consider whether there has been a material change in circumstances. We have consistently stated that a relocation alone cannot be a material change in circumstances. See Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 54, 560 N.W.2d 903 (citing McDonough v. Murphy, 539 N.W.2d 313, 317 (N.D.1995)) (“Relocation of the minor child is not in and of itself a significant change in circumstances.”); Barstad v. Barstad, 499 N.W.2d 584, 587 (N.D.1993) (“[W]e have said that a move to another state does not, by itself, compel a change of custody.”) (citation omitted). Yet, the majority cites Kelly and Gietzen to support the proposition that a parent’s relocation may constitute a material change in circumstances. Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 ND 37, ¶ 19, 640 N.W.2d 38; Gietzen v. Gietzen, 1998 ND 70, ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d 924. However, Kelly and Gietzen are both distinguishable. Both Kelly and Gietzen involved more than relocation, and the relocations in both cases were within the state. Kelly, at ¶ 18; Gietzen, at ¶¶ 5-9. In Kelly, the Court stated, “The relocation of a parent and a change of a child’s preference may constitute a significant change of circumstances.” 2002 ND 37, ¶ 19, 640 N.W.2d 38 (citing Gietzen, 1998 ND 70, ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d 924; Mosbrucker v. Mosbrucker, 1997 ND 72, ¶ 10, 562 N.W.2d 390; Alvarez v. Carlson, 524 N.W.2d 584, 590 (N.D.1994)) (emphasis added). In Gietzen, the Court considered the custodial parent’s relocation within the state that occurred in conjunction with the parent’s decision to move in with her new boyfriend, as well as the child’s preference. Gietzen, 1998 ND 70, ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d 924. Our Court has stated that “[o]nly in the event a custodial parent will move without the children does that move constitute a change of circumstances for purposes of deciding a companion motion for change of custody.” Wright v. Wright, 431 N.W.2d 301, 304 (N.D.1988). Therefore, it is clear that our case law does not support the proposition that relocation alone is sufficient to establish a change in circumstances as the majority holds. I am of the opinion that when a parent has joint physical custody and states he will move without the children and he has a legitimate reason for leaving the state, those facts taken together may constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of a child, sufficient to require examination of the best interests of the child. See Brown v. Brown, 260 Neb. 954, 621 N.W.2d 70, 78 (2000). The better rule is that a parent sharing joint physical custody must prove a material change in circumstances by evidence of a legitimate reason to leave the state and an expressed intent to do so without the children. Id. at 78-79. We have held that if the custodial parent states she will not move without the children there is no substantial change of circumstances. Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 304.
*493[¶ 19] The majority, at ¶ 9, states: “This Court ... rejected an invitation to interpret a material change in circumstances to be met only by evidence of a significant or important change that has a negative impact on the well-being of the child.” It also states, at ¶ 11, “Neither N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(6) nor Maynard requires a specific finding that a material change in circumstances must adversely impact a child in the context of a relocation case involving joint custody.” I disagree with that interpretation of the statute and our case law. See Kelly, 2002 ND 37, ¶¶ 38-53, 640 N.W.2d 38 (Maring, J., concurring). We have continually held that “[i]f the court finds there has been a material change in circumstances, the court must also consider whether the change is so adverse to the child’s best interests that custody should be modified.” Siewert, 2008 ND 221, ¶ 19, 758 N.W.2d 691 (citing N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6); see also Klein, 2006 ND 236, ¶ 12, 724 N.W.2d 565 (providing the second step in a modification of custody analysis as whether the changes of circumstances affect the child in such an adverse way that it compels or requires a change in custody to further the best interests of the child); Kelly, 2002 ND 37, ¶ 47, 640 N.W.2d 38 (Maring, J., concurring) (“[T]he determination of whether there is a material change of circumstances must be met only by evidence of a significant or important change that has a negative impact on the well-being of the child.”); Hilgers v. Hilgers, 2002 ND 173, ¶ 23, 653 N.W.2d 79; O’Neill v. O’Neill, 2000 ND 200, ¶ 4, 619 N.W.2d 855; Interest of K.M.G., 2000 ND 50, ¶ 4, 607 N.W.2d 248; Luna v. Luna, 1999 ND 79, ¶ 24, 592 N.W.2d 557; Hill v. Weber, 1999 ND 74, ¶ 8, 592 N.W.2d 585; Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 1999 ND 37, ¶ 13, 590 N.W.2d 220; Mosbrucker v. Mosbrucker, 1997 ND 72, ¶ 6, 562 N.W.2d 390. Here, the trial court concluded that a material change of circumstances occurred because Garry Dunn would move to Wyoming without the children. This is consistent with Wright and even Maynard. See Wright, 431 N.W.2d at 304; Maynard, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 18, 710 N.W.2d 369.
[¶ 20] A finding of a material change in circumstances must be followed by an analysis of whether the change affects the child in such an adverse way that it compels a change in custody in the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Klein, 2006 ND 236, ¶ 12, 724 N.W.2d 565. Although the trial court must consider whether the change adversely affects the best interests, I disagree with Michelle Dunn’s position that the court must make a specific finding on the issue in a joint physical custody case. When a parent with joint physical custody relocates, it is implicit that the parent’s relocation will adversely impact the children. The intent to move without the children indicates the necessity for some sort of modification to address the new circumstances. When one parent relocates, the children in joint custody situations will often have less parenting time with one parent. See, e.g., Stout, 1997 ND 61, ¶ 30, 560 N.W.2d 903 (“If the court refuses to grant permission for the children to leave the state and the custodial parent leaves, the roles are reversed, but the problem is the same: The move has interfered with or restricted the ability of one parent to exercise visitation rights.”). The court can analyze this within the best interest of the child factors, and it did so here. The trial court determined that factors “d” and “e” favored Garry Dunn, while the other factors were equal, and factors “1” and “j” did not apply. The court made specific findings under factors “d” and “e”:
The children have spent more time at Garry Dunn’s residence. Although Michelle Dunn has contributed, he has had *494the principal responsibility for taking care of the children’s needs. Therefore, factor d favors Garry Dunn. Similarly, the children have bonded as a family unit with their stepmother and her children. They have become accustomed to living in their father’s residence. This is countered by their bond with their mother and the fact that they will likely miss her. Nevertheless, the permanence factor, e, favors Garry Dunn.
Thus, the trial court implicitly considered whether Garry Dunn’s relocation would adversely impact the children. If the court determined the material change would not adversely affect the children, then the change would not compel a change of custody in the best interests of the children. In this case, Garry Dunn’s new job opportunity and intent to move even without the children would disrupt the minor children’s stable environment with the father and the permanence of the family unit. The trial court found none of the factors favored Michelle Dunn. Nothing in Maynard suggests that the trial court should not consider whether the material change adversely impacts the child, and Maynard should not be read to completely disregard the analysis this Court has consistently applied and instructed trial courts to apply in change of custody determinations.
[¶ 21] To the extent Maynard held that only the best-interests-of-the-child factors in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 must be applied and the Stout-Hawkinson factors would not be applied after a primary custody determination, I disagree. See Maynard, 2006 ND 36, ¶ 21, 710 N.W.2d 369. The trial court here correctly applied our past case law and first determined the motion for a change of custody. However, the majority ignores the trial court’s consideration of the Stout-Hawkinson factors in the trial court’s analysis of the motion to relocate. The majority opinion, at ¶ 4, states, “[t]he court granted Garry Dunn physical custody of the two youngest children and then decided the children’s best interests were to move with him to Wyoming.” However, in deciding whether to grant a motion to relocate to another state is in the child’s best interests, factors other than those under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2 must be considered. The trial court properly considered whether it was in the best interest of the children to move to another state, and it applied the Stout-Hawkinson factors to analyze the motion to relocate. The Stout-Hawkinson factors provide:
1. The prospective advantages of the move in improving the custodial parent’s and child’s quality of life,
2. The integrity of the custodial parent’s motive for relocation, considering whether it is to defeat or deter visitation by the noncustodial parent,
3. The integrity of the noncustodial parent’s motives for opposing the move,
4. The potential negative impact on the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child, including whether there is a realistic opportunity for visitation which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the child if relocation is allowed, and the likelihood that each parent will comply with such alternate visitation.
Hawkinson v. Hawkinson, 1999 ND 58, ¶¶ 6, 9, 591 N.W.2d 144. Under our case law, these factors must be applied in those cases when a parent with primary physical custody wishes to relocate with the child. At the time a court determines the motion to relocate, the court will have decided whether a change of custody is appropriate. If the physical custody changes to *495the parent who opposed the motion to relocate, then the motion to relocate becomes moot. However, if primary custody is awarded to the parent who intends to relocate, the court must apply the Stout-Hawkinson factors.
[¶ 22] The trial court’s analysis provides an excellent example of how the Stout-Hawkinson factors provide additional and different considerations than the best interests of the child specifically relating to modification of custody. We must provide trial courts with the opportunity to decide whether a change of custody is warranted, but a relocation is not, and Maynard does not provide that analysis. Applying the four Stout-Hawkinson factors, the trial court found:
19. The prospective advantages of the move in improving the custodial parent’s and children’s quality of life are significant. Sheridan offers more job stability for Garry Dunn, as well as higher income, more free time, and a more stimulating professional environment. This will positively affect the whole family. Further, the children will have the same or better educational and athletic opportunities as in Dickinson. Also, the family currently has limited religious opportunities. Sheridan has a much larger group with the same religious beliefs as the Dunn family.
20. Garry wishes to move to improve his family’s situation. It is clear that he is not attempting to defeat or deter visitation by Michelle Dunn as [he is] proposing a visitation schedule which would continue about the same parenting time.
21. No evidence was presented as to Michelle Dunn’s motive for opposing the motion. Thus, the Court makes no finding as to this factor. However, the Court finds that Michelle Dunn’s visitation time and bond with her children will not be negatively impacted if Garry Dunn’s proposed visitation schedule or similar schedule is implemented.
22. After analyzing the applicable factors, the Court finds that it is in the children’s best interests to move with Garry Dunn, but the Court is concerned about moving the children before the end of the school year. Therefore, the Court’s permission to change the children’s residency does not take affect [sic] until the end of the current school year.
By contrast, under the best interest factors, the trial court made findings only on factors “d” and “e” regarding the time that the children currently spend at Garry Dunn’s residence, the parental responsibility for care, and the current family unit. The change of custody analysis is different, and although the custody analysis is undis-putably intertwined with the relocation analysis in situations in which parents have joint physical custody and one parent wishes to relocate, separate analyses are necessary to determine first, whether a change of custody is warranted, and second, whether relocation is appropriate.
[¶ 23] Although I disagree with the majority’s analysis of our legal precedent, I do not believe the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Therefore, I concur in the result.
[¶ 24] Mary Muehlen Maring