BOATMAN v. BOATMAN
2017 OK 27
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Parties: Jennifer Boatman (Mother, now Walls) and Nick Boatman (Father) divorced in 2007; shared joint custody and roughly equal parenting time for their daughter born 2005.
- Joint custody plan did not designate a primary physical custodian nor a principal residence.
- In 2013 Mother accepted an Atlanta executive job after her Tulsa position was eliminated and filed notice to relocate with the child; Father objected.
- Trial court denied Mother's relocation request, finding the move not made in good faith and not in the child's best interests; it ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees.
- Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated that opinion in part, held a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation statute, and remanded for designation of a primary physical custodian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian may invoke the relocation statute (43 O.S. §112.3) | Mother: joint custody allows either parent to use the statutory relocation procedure | Father: only "the person entitled to custody" (i.e., a single primary physical custodian) may invoke the statute | A joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation provisions; trial court must first designate a primary physical custodian |
| Who bears the burdens of proof on good faith and best interest in relocation proceedings | Mother: she met burden by showing legitimate employment motive; court should apply statutory burden-shifting | Father: trial court found lack of good faith and held Mother did not meet burden | Statute requires relocating parent to prove good faith; if met, burden shifts to nonrelocating parent to prove move is not in child's best interest |
| Whether Mother's employment-based motivation constituted lack of good faith | Mother: move was prompted solely by a legitimate job opportunity and loss of prior position, not to thwart Father's rights | Father: Mother did not disclose job search and accepted position soon after informing him, suggesting bad faith | Court: employment opportunity and financial reasons are legitimate; Mother's move was in good faith on the record presented; focus on honest intent, not on timing of disclosure |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Mother's request for attorney fees | Mother: trial court failed to make specific Burk findings and should have awarded fees given the equities | Father: each party should bear own fees; court balanced equities and incomes | Court: no abuse of discretion; Burk specifics not required here and balancing of equities (Mother's substantially higher income) supports each party bearing own fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (relocation: employment opportunity can establish good faith; burden-shifting described)
- Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (custody/relocation analysis involving sole custodian)
- Kaiser v. Kaiser, 23 P.3d 278 (Okla. 2001) (historical recognition of custodial right to change residence)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (Burk equitable fund doctrine and guidance on fee findings)
- Childers v. Childers, 382 P.3d 1020 (Okla. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for attorney fee awards)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 25 P.3d 291 (Okla. 2001) (income disparity as factor in awarding fees)