RICHARDS v. RICHARDS
2017 OK CIV APP 41
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in April 2014; mother (Rachael) was awarded primary custody of two children and the marital home; father (Wayne) had reasonable visitation.
- Mother filed a January 2015 Notice of Relocation stating she would move to Hugo, OK (~138 miles away) and enroll in a nursing program; father objected and moved to modify custody.
- Mother actually moved in March 2015 to Rattan, OK (near Hugo) into her boyfriend’s parents' home, did not occupy the Hugo rental address given in the notice, and had not enrolled in nursing classes before the custody hearing.
- Mother did not update relocation notice to reflect changed address, living arrangements, or school plans; father asserted she failed to act in good faith and that the move materially reduced his visitation and raised safety concerns (boyfriend’s drug use and an assault arrest).
- Trial court found mother did not relocate in good faith, concluded the move was a permanent, material, substantial change that decreased father’s parenting time, and modified custody, visitation, and child support awarding father primary custody beginning November 1, 2015.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, finding evidence supported the trial court’s findings (failure to update notice, questionable motives, and additional safety/visitation impacts).
Issues
| Issue | Richards (Mother) Argument | Richards (Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother established a good‑faith relocation under 43 O.S. §112.3 | Mother: had a legitimate reason to relocate (employment/school, housing affordability) and presumptive right to move | Father: mother misrepresented address, living arrangements, and schooling; failed to update notice, indicating lack of good faith | Court: Mother failed to meet ongoing notice obligations and acted without good faith; finding supported by record |
| Whether relocation justified modifying custody under Gibbons (permanent, material, substantial change affecting child) | Mother: change in visitation alone insufficient to transfer custody; relocation permissible for reasons like being near loved ones | Father: move decreased his visitation, introduced safety concerns (boyfriend’s conduct), and mother’s failure to notify justified consideration of modification | Court: Gibbons standard met—move was permanent/material/substantial and children would be better off with father given decreased access and safety/notice issues; custody modified |
| Whether visitation changes alone can support custody change | Mother: argues altering visitation schedule is insufficient to warrant custody transfer | Father: contends visitation disruption combined with other factors (safety, failure to notify) justifies custody change | Court: Visitation change alone might not suffice, but here combined factors justified modification; no error affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 442 P.2d 482 (Okla. 1968) (sets two‑step test for custody modification: permanent/material/substantial change and that child would be substantially better off)
- Casey v. Casey, 58 P.3d 763 (Okla. 2002) (standard of review for custody modification is abuse of discretion; decision must be supported by the record)
- Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (distinguishes relocation statutes and notes custodial parent's presumptive right to relocate subject to statutory process)
- Scocos v. Scocos, 369 P.3d 1068 (Okla. 2016) (acknowledges moving to be near loved ones can be legitimate but emphasizes duty to provide accurate notice and good‑faith disclosure)