Robertson v. Robertson, 370 P.3d 569

Joshua Robertson and Rachael Linares (fka Robertson) are divorced parents disputing Linares’s planned relocation with the children to Colorado (over 150 miles). Trial court approved relocation as being in the children’s best interests; Joshua appealed.
At trial the court weighed multiple custody factors: parental bond (equal), moral standards, primary caretaker role, ability to encourage contact with the other parent, physical living arrangements, extended family and community ties.
The court found several factors (primary caretaker, surrogate vs. personal care, moral standards slightly, ability to encourage contact slightly, physical living arrangements slightly) favored relocation; extended family and Utah community ties weighed against it.
Joshua moved for a continuance so a relocation evaluator could inspect Linares’s new Colorado home; the trial court denied the motion, citing other evidence and witnesses and timeliness.
Joshua argued the relocation notice must include the new address and with whom Linares was relocating; the court held the statute does not require those details in the notice.
The appellate court affirmed: no abuse of discretion on continuance or custody determination; no statutory requirement that relocation notice include the new address or co-resident identity.

Issue	Robertson's Argument	Linares's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Needed time for evaluator to inspect Colorado home; denial prejudiced him	Court had other evidence and witnesses; timeliness favored denial	No abuse of discretion; court articulated valid reasons and likely outcome unaffected
Best-interests custody determination/relocation	Court misweighed factors; majority weighed against relocation	Court properly weighed factors and gave primary-caretaker factor greater weight	No abuse of discretion; relocation in children’s best interests
Moral-standards factor	Cohabitation should not reflect negatively given cultural shifts	Stability of marriage vs. cohabitation relevant to children’s welfare	Court’s slight weight for mother was not clearly erroneous
Ability to encourage contact	Court erred in favoring Linares	Linares more willing to discuss and accommodate relocation	Finding that Linares was slightly more likely to encourage contact was not clearly erroneous
Physical living arrangements	Utah home provided more space; court erred in favoring Colorado home	Colorado home was adequate; no evidence it was substandard	Even if close, trial court’s limited finding (slight) supported by record and not outcome-determinative
Relocation notice content	Notice must include destination and with whom parent relocates	Statute requires only 60-day written notice of intent to move 150+ miles	Statute does not require address or co-resident identity in the notice; no reversible error

Vaughan v. Romander, 360 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing continuance decisions)
Pingree v. Pingree, 365 P.3d 713 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (primary focus in custody is child’s best interests)
Roberts v. Roberts, 835 P.2d 193 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (moral standards may be relevant to custody when they affect children’s best interests)
Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (deference to trial court in close custody choices between two good parents)
Cox v. Cox, 285 P.3d 791 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (custody may require choosing between good and better; trial court discretion)