Peterson v. Peterson (Child Custody)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 16, 2014
• Docket: 64479
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

reason to move constitutes an actual advantage); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1271 (1991). If the court finds an actual advantage, the court must then weigh the relevant factors set forth in Schwartz. Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 314-15, 890 P.2d 1309, 1312-13 (1995). Under Schwartz, when determining whether to grant a parent's motion to relocate, the court must consider whether (1) the move will likely improve the custodial parent and the child's qualify of life; (2) the custodial parent's motives are honorable; (3) the custodial parent will comply with the court's visitation orders; (4) the noncustodial parent's motives for resisting the move are honorable; and (5) the noncustodial parent will have a realistic opportunity to exercise visitation if the move is approved, so that the parent's relationship with the child will be adequately fostered. 107 Nev. at 382-83, 812 P.2d at 1271. Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting respondent's motion to relocate with the minor children. Wallace

v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that this court reviews district court child custody decisions for an abuse of discretion). The record demonstrates that while the district court acknowledged the difficulty involved in allowing a parent to relocate to a foreign country with the minor children, the court conducted a lengthy analysis of respondent's basis for requesting the relocation and each of the Schwartz factors before granting respondent's motion. Further, despite appellant's assertion to the contrary, Schwartz does not require a change in circumstances to occur before a party seeks to relocate. Schwartz, 107

Nev. at 382, 812 P.2d at 1270 (explaining that tlemoval of minor

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A em children from Nevada by the custodial parent is a separate and distinct issue from the custody of the children"). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1

J .

Hardesty

6 ,VA Dirdi , J. Douglas

Cherry

cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division Pecos Law Group Zernich Law Office Eighth District Court Clerk

1 We have determined that this appeal should be submitted for decision on the fast track statement and response and the appellate record without oral argument. See NRAP 3E(g)(1); see also NRAP 34(0(1).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A