B.R.M. v. M.B.W.
124451
| Kan. Ct. App. | Apr 15, 2022Background:
- Parents (M.B.W., mother; R.D.M., father) never married; child B.R.M. born 2015; parents informally shared care after 2018 separation.
- In 2019 the court approved a parenting plan giving M.B.W. primary residential custody while R.D.M. was in graduate school and living in Iowa.
- In early 2021 R.D.M. (now married, employed as a college football assistant coach in Iowa) moved to modify custody to make him primary residential parent; one-day evidentiary hearing held July 2021.
- Both parents found competent and loving; each has local support networks—R.D.M.’s wife assists; M.B.W. works as a Garden City police officer with family assistance for childcare.
- District court found M.B.W. often failed to communicate and consult with R.D.M. about the child (e.g., unilateral preschool enrollment), impairing co-parenting; court concluded custodial change would improve cooperation.
- Court applied K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-3203(a) best-interest factors, awarded primary custody to R.D.M., preserved significant visitation for M.B.W.; appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.B.W.) | Defendant's Argument (R.D.M.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in changing primary residential custody | The court ignored evidence favorable to mother and alleged emotional abuse by father; decision was erroneous | Change appropriate and in child's best interests given superior coparenting/communication if father is primary custodial parent | Affirmed—no abuse of discretion; record supports findings |
| Whether the court properly considered statutory best-interest factors (K.S.A. 23-3203(a)) | Court omitted or failed to discuss relevant evidence and factors | Court identified and applied relevant statutory factors; need not address every factor | Held: Court adequately considered the statute; need not catalogue every factor or piece of evidence |
| Whether the court erred by not interviewing or eliciting the child's preference | Mother argues child's views should be considered if mature enough | Child was young (about 5); not required to interview or rely on child’s desires | Held: No error—child’s age made interviewing unnecessary |
| Whether omission of particular adverse incidents (e.g., alleged emotional abuse) in findings requires reversal | Omitted incidents show father’s unfitness and warrant reversal | Omissions reflect court found those items unpersuasive or irrelevant; court need not recite all evidence | Held: No error—district court may omit reciting all evidence; omissions do not show failure to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Tauheed, 292 Kan. 663, 256 P.3d 851 (2011) (best interests governs custody and parenting-time disputes)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 223 Kan. 639, 576 P.2d 589 (1978) (party seeking custody change bears burden of persuasion)
- In re Marriage of Rayman, 273 Kan. 996, 47 P.3d 413 (2002) (custody determinations rest in district court's sound judicial discretion)
- Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873, 424 P.3d 515 (2018) (clarifies standards for abuse of discretion review)
- Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 296 P.3d 1106 (2013) (describes limits of judicial discretion and review)
- McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir. 2001) (observes that under abuse-of-discretion review an appellate court may affirm whichever way a trial court could reasonably have ruled)