RICHARDS v. RICHARDS
401 P.3d 1175
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2014; mother (Rachael) was primary custodial parent of two children (b. 2005 and 2012); father (Wayne) had ordered visitation.
- Divorce decree contained statutory relocation/notice requirements (43 O.S. §112.3) and a standard visitation schedule; decree warned failure to notify could be considered in custody modification.
- Mother filed a January 2015 notice saying she would relocate to Hugo to enroll in nursing school and gave a rental address; father objected and moved to modify custody.
- Instead of the Hugo rental, mother moved in March 2015 to Rattan (near Hugo) into her boyfriend’s parents’ home, did not enroll in nursing school prior to the hearing, and did not update or amend her relocation notice.
- Trial court found mother did not relocate in good faith, cited failures to keep notice current and other concerns (boyfriend’s criminal/arrest and alleged marijuana exposure to children), found a material, substantial, permanent change under Gibbons, and modified custody, visitation, and child support making father primary custodian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s relocation was made in good faith under §112.3 | Mother claimed she had a legitimate plan (move for school/job) and a presumptive right to relocate | Father argued notice was misleading, mother failed to update material changes, and move was effectively to be near boyfriend | Court: Mother did not act in good faith; failure to keep relocation information current and discrepancies supported that finding |
| Whether father met the burden to show modification of custody was warranted | Mother contended change in visitation alone is insufficient to transfer custody | Father argued relocation materially decreased his parenting time and other safety/ welfare concerns existed (boyfriend’s conduct) | Court: Even beyond reduced visitation, additional factors (boyfriend issues, lack of notice) and Gibbons analysis supported custody modification to father |
| Whether the move constituted a permanent, material and substantial change under Gibbons | Mother argued reasons for move were legitimate and not prejudicial to children | Father argued relocation decreased father’s time and introduced risks to children’s welfare | Court: Found permanent, material, substantial change affecting best interests; ordered custody changed to father |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in modifying custody | Mother asserted abuse of discretion given relocation presumptions and her stated plans | Father maintained trial court acted within discretion based on record evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 442 P.2d 482 (Okla. 1968) (establishes standard requiring permanent, material, substantial change affecting child’s best interests for custody modification)
- Casey v. Casey, 58 P.3d 763 (Okla. 2002) (modification of custody reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (distinguishes relocation statutes and burdens between relocating and non-relocating parents)
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (relocation to be near loved ones is permissible but must be disclosed and made in good faith)