347 P.3d 645
Idaho2015Background
- Krissy Lamont and Matthew Lamont, married in 2009, have two minor children and divorced; Krissy received primary physical custody.
- Matthew filed to modify custody after learning Krissy planned to relocate the children to Meridian, Idaho; Krissy cross-petitioned to relocate there herself.
- Magistrate court held a hearing, then granted Krissy’s relocation request and denied Matthew’s; it imposed a visitation plan with at least one monthly visit and extended summer visitation.
- Matthew sought a permissive appeal; the magistrate court denied, and the Idaho Supreme Court granted expedited review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court, concluding relocation was in the children's best interests and awarding Krissy attorney’s fees on appeal.
- The opinion discusses Idaho Code § 32-717 and related case law governing relocation and custody in the best interests framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation was in the children's best interests | Lamont argues relocation should be denied. | Lamont contends relocation is in Meridian's advantages and best interests. | Relocation approved; best interests favored. |
| Whether the magistrate court abused discretion in modifying custody | Lamont asserts lack of substantial evidence for relocation and custody shift. | Lamont argues court properly weighed factors and child welfare. | No abuse of discretion; thorough analysis within legal standards. |
| Whether there is a presumption favoring joint custody and its application to relocation | Lamont cites presumption against relocation where joint custody is preferred. | Lamont argues relocation defeats or modifies the presumption by best interests. | Presumption in favor of joint custody recognized; relocation governed by best interests analysis. |
| Whether Krissy is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal | Lamont seeks no fee recovery on appeal. | Lamont seeks fees, and the prevailing party should be awarded. | Krissy awarded attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suter v. Biggers, 157 Idaho 542 (2014) (abuse of discretion standard in custody determinations; best interests as paramount)
- Bartoz v. Jones, 146 Idaho 449 (2008) (non-exhaustive factors; relocation considerations and neutral nuances)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 281 P.3d 1096 (Idaho 2012) (relocation factors; non-exhaustive 32-717 framework)
- State v. Anderson, 294 P.3d 180 (Idaho 2013) (joint custody framework and equal visitation not required)
- Koester v. Koester, 586 P.2d 1370 (Idaho 1978) (court determines amount of time with each parent under 32-717B(2))