SCOCOS v. SCOCOS, 369 P.3d 1068

Kayla J. Giles (mother) and Andrew M. Scocos (father) divorced in 2013; mother was designated primary physical custodian of the parties' child in the agreed decree and joint custody plan.
Mother accepted employment in Alexandria, Louisiana, and gave notice to relocate the child; she briefly moved the child to start the job before the relocation hearing.
Father objected, sought immediate primary physical custody, and argued the relocation was in bad faith because mother’s romantic relationship in Louisiana was the motivating factor.
The trial court found the relocation not made in good faith, attributed the move primarily to a love interest, kept joint custody but shifted the child’s residence to father and limited mother’s visitation.
On appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held mother met the good-faith burden (employment, family proximity, financial stability) and found father failed to prove the move was contrary to the child’s best interests; it reversed the denial of relocation, reversed attorney’s fees award, and remanded for visitation and related orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Giles)	Defendant's Argument (Scocos)	Held
Whether relocation was made in good faith	Move was for federal employment, family support, financial stability	Move was actually motivated by a romantic relationship and withheld from negotiations	Court: Giles met good-faith burden; legitimate employment/family reasons shown
Who bears burden on best-interest showing after good faith found	Once good faith is shown, burden shifts to father to prove relocation is not in child's best interest	Father must show relocation harms child's welfare or visitation alone justifies denial	Court: burden shifted; father failed to show relocation was against child's best interests
Whether trial court properly applied best-interest factors	Trial court should apply statutory §112.3(J) factors after finding good faith	Trial court did not fully apply or articulate the statutory best-interest analysis	Court: trial court’s analysis was flawed because it denied good faith and did not apply required factors
Whether attorney's fees award to father was proper	Fees not warranted absent compelling reason	Father awarded $4,500 by trial court	Court: reversed award; no compelling reason shown to award fees at this time

Kaiser v. Kaiser, 23 P.3d 278 (Okla. 2001) (approved relocation for employment-related reasons; visitation disruption alone insufficient to deny relocation)
Mahmoodjanloo v. Mahmoodjanloo, 160 P.3d 951 (Okla. 2007) (once relocating parent proves good faith, burden shifts to nonrelocating parent to show move is not in child’s best interest)
Daniel v. Daniel, 42 P.3d 863 (Okla. 2001) (appellate review of custody for abuse of discretion; child’s best interest paramount)
Curry v. Streater, 213 P.3d 550 (Okla. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
Hoedebeck v. Hoedebeck, 948 P.2d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (deference to trial court based on credibility and demeanor assessments)