This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute between divorced parents over the custody of their minor daughter. The parents had a joint custody arrangement under which the child primarily resided with the mother but spent significant time with the father. The mother sought to relocate with the child to New Hampshire due to employment opportunities, while the father opposed the move and sought sole physical custody, proposing to relocate with the child to Socorro. The trial court modified the custody arrangement, awarding sole physical custody to the mother and granting the father visitation rights (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Dona Ana County: The trial court modified the original joint custody arrangement, awarding sole physical custody to the mother and granting the father visitation rights (paras 6, 22).
Parties' Submissions
- Father (Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee): Argued that the trial court erred in designating the mother as the "primary physical custodian" and in applying a presumption favoring her right to relocate. He contended that the relocation constituted a substantial change in circumstances and that the burden of proof was improperly shifted to him to show harm to the child. He also challenged the finding that the child would not suffer adverse effects from the relocation and the restriction on the child traveling alone by plane until age eight (paras 1, 7-8, 15-17, 20-21).
- Mother (Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant): Argued that she was the primary physical custodian and that her relocation was legitimate and in the child's best interests. She disputed the trial court's finding that the parents contributed equally to the child's upbringing and cross-appealed the denial of her costs (paras 7-8, 22).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in designating the mother as the "primary physical custodian" in a joint custody arrangement (paras 7-8).
- Whether the trial court misapplied the presumption favoring a sole custodian's right to relocate to a joint custody situation (paras 9-14).
- Whether the relocation of one parent in a joint custody arrangement constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of custody (paras 15-16).
- Whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted to the father to show harm to the child or bad faith by the mother (paras 15-19).
- Whether the trial court erred in finding that the child would not suffer adverse effects from the relocation (para 20).
- Whether the trial court erred in restricting the child from traveling alone by plane until age eight (para 21).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order modifying joint custody and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 23).
- The issue of the mother's denial of costs was deemed moot (para 23).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Alarid J. concurring):
The trial court erred in applying the presumption favoring a sole custodian's right to relocate to a joint custody situation. In joint custody cases, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration, and neither parent should be presumed to have a superior right to relocate (paras 9-14). The trial court's designation of the mother as the "primary physical custodian" was not dispositive and did not entitle her to the presumption afforded to sole custodians (paras 12-14).
The relocation of one parent in a joint custody arrangement constitutes a substantial change in circumstances, as it disrupts the parenting plan. Both parents should have entered the custody modification proceedings on equal footing, with the burden of proof on each party to show that their proposed arrangement was in the child's best interests (paras 15-19).
The trial court's finding that the child would not suffer adverse effects from the relocation was not addressed due to the need for redetermination of the child's best interests under correct legal principles (para 20). The restriction on the child traveling alone by plane until age eight was unsupported by evidence and was set aside (para 21).
Per Donnelly J. (Concurring in part, dissenting in part):
Donnelly J. agreed with the reversal and remand but dissented on the allocation of the burden of proof. He argued that the parent seeking to relocate in a joint custody arrangement bears the burden of proving that the relocation is in the child's best interests. This burden applies even when both parents propose relocations that would require modification of the custody arrangement. Donnelly J. emphasized the importance of preserving joint custody arrangements where possible and suggested that courts should require a modified parenting plan from the relocating parent (paras 25-31).