BOATMAN v. BOATMAN, 404 P.3d 822

Jennifer (Mother) and Nick Boatman (Father) divorced in 2007 and shared joint custody of their daughter (born 2005) under a joint custody plan that did not designate a primary physical custodian.
In 2013 Mother was offered an executive job in Atlanta with significant pay increases and gave notice of intent to relocate; Father objected.
Mother filed to modify the joint custody plan and relocate; a two-day trial court hearing (June 2014) resulted in denial of relocation (court found move not in good faith and not in child’s best interest) and ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees.
Mother appealed both the relocation denial and the denial of fee relief; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals decision in part, holding a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the statutory relocation procedure and remanded for a hearing to designate a primary physical custodian.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a joint custodian who is not designated primary physical custodian may invoke 43 O.S. §112.3 relocation procedure	Mother: As a joint custodian she may initiate relocation under the statute	Father: A joint custodian without primary physical custody cannot unilaterally invoke the statute	Court: A joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation provisions; court must first designate a primary physical custodian
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering each party to pay own attorney fees (no Burk hearing)	Mother: Trial court erred by not conducting a Burk-style factual/fee hearing and by denying fees	Father: Trial court acted within discretion; equities do not favor awarding Mother fees given relative means	Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court properly balanced equities; ordering each party to pay their own fees affirmed

Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (explains burdens in relocation: relocating parent must prove good faith, then burden shifts to objecting parent on best interest)
Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (relocation context involving custodial status)
State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (Burk equitable-fund doctrine and guidance on fee findings)
Kaiser v. Kaiser, 23 P.3d 278 (Okla. 2001) (recognition of custodial parent's right to change residence subject to court restraint)
Childers v. Childers, 382 P.3d 1020 (Okla. 2016) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards in family law)
Abbott v. Abbott, 25 P.3d 291 (Okla. 2001) (income disparity as factor in awarding fees)