BOATMAN v. BOATMAN
2017 OK 27
Okla.2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2007 and operated under a joint custody plan giving equal time to each parent; no primary physical custodian was designated by court order.
- In 2013 Mother (Jennifer Walls) received an out-of-state job offer in Atlanta with significantly higher pay and announced intent to relocate with the child; Father (Nick Boatman) objected and sought to prevent the move.
- Mother moved to modify the joint custody plan and invoked Oklahoma’s statutory relocation procedure; Father contested both the relocation and the good‑faith basis for it.
- Trial court denied relocation, finding the move was not in good faith and not in the child’s best interest; it ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals decision in part, held that a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation statute, and remanded for a hearing to designate a primary physical custodian within 30 days; it also affirmed the trial court’s attorney‑fee ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a joint custodian (without a court‑designated primary physical custodian) may invoke the statutory relocation procedure | Mother argued that joint custody permits either parent to initiate relocation under 43 O.S. §112.3 | Father argued that only the person "entitled to custody" (i.e., the primary physical custodian) may invoke relocation | A joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian cannot invoke the relocation statute; court must first designate a primary physical custodian |
| Proper allocation of burdens (good faith / best interests) under the relocation statute | Mother argued she acted in good faith based on an employment opportunity and thus the burden should shift to Father to show the move is not in the child's best interest | Father argued Mother failed to satisfy good‑faith requirement and that relocation would harm the child’s welfare | Court reiterated statute: relocating parent must first prove good faith; if met, burden shifts to non‑relocating parent to show relocation is not in child's best interest; trial court misapplied burdens by placing both on Mother |
| Whether trial court must appoint/modify custody before ruling on relocation | Mother sought resolution on relocation without prior designation of a primary custodian | Father argued relocation cannot proceed absent a determination of who is the person "entitled to custody" | Court remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing within 30 days to appoint a primary physical custodian; only then may relocation analysis proceed (or become moot if custody awarded to Father) |
| Award of attorney fees | Mother sought fees arguing trial court failed to make detailed Burk findings | Father opposed fees; trial court ordered each to pay own fees | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; equitable balancing (income disparity and other factors) did not warrant awarding Mother fees; no reversible Burk error |
Key Cases Cited
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (employment opportunity may constitute good faith for relocation; burden shifts if good faith shown)
- Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (relocation statute applied in context of sole/primary physical custody)
- Kaiser v. Kaiser, 23 P.3d 278 (Okla. 2001) (historical recognition of custodial parent’s right to change residence subject to court restraint)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (Burk equitable‑fund principles and factors for assessing reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- Childers v. Childers, 382 P.3d 1020 (Okla. 2016) (trial court’s attorney‑fee determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)