Peterson v. Peterson (Child Custody) ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 64479

Filed Date: 9/16/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021