BOATMAN v. BOATMAN
2017 OK 27
Okla.2017Background
- Parties divorced in 2007 and shared joint custody of their daughter (born 2005) under a joint custody plan that named neither parent as primary physical custodian.
- In 2013 Mother received a job offer in Atlanta with significant salary/bonus increases and filed notice to relocate; Father objected and sought to prevent relocation.
- Trial court (after a two-day hearing) denied Mother's relocation request as not made in good faith and not in the child's best interest, and ordered each party to pay their own attorney fees.
- Mother appealed both the relocation denial and the denial of attorney fees; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted review.
- Supreme Court held that when joint custody exists but no primary physical custodian is designated, a court must first determine/appoint a primary physical custodian before applying the statutory relocation procedure; it also affirmed the trial court's fee ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a joint custodian who is not the primary physical custodian can invoke the statutory relocation procedure (43 O.S. §112.3) | Mother argued joint custody allows either parent to invoke relocation procedures | Father argued a joint custodian without primary physical custody is not "the person entitled to custody" under §112.3 and thus cannot unilaterally relocate | Court held 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 and best interest) under relocation statute | Mother contended she satisfied good-faith showing (move motivated by job loss/offer) | Father contended move lacked good faith and was not in child's best interest | Court clarified: relocating parent bears burden to prove good faith; if met, burden shifts to nonrelocating parent to prove relocation is not in child's best interest; remanded for designation of primary custodian and, if Mother is designated primary, application of this burden-shifting framework |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying Mother's attorney fees | Mother argued trial court failed to make detailed Burk findings and should have awarded fees given disparities | Father argued no abuse: fee awards are discretionary and statutory standards not met | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; after balancing equities (income disparity insufficient to require fee award), each party paying own fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (employment opportunities can constitute good-faith reasons to relocate)
- Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (relocation context involving sole/primary custodians)
- Kaiser v. Kaiser, 23 P.3d 278 (Okla. 2001) (historical recognition of custodial parent's right to change residence)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (Burk equitable-fund/fee considerations and the requirement for reasoned findings)
- Childers v. Childers, 382 P.3d 1020 (Okla. 2016) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney fees in family law matters)