Searle v. Searle, 405 P.3d 1180

Parents divorced in 2007; 2013 custody order awarded Mother primary custody during the school year and Father visitation (summers/holidays) with travel-cost allocation for flights when Child lived out of state.
Mother moved to Virginia in 2012 consistent with an agreement allowing relocation; she returned to Idaho in November 2014 for health reasons after consulting Father.
Father worked in North Dakota oil fields (high income) until May 2015, then lost that job and took lower-paying seasonal/local work; he petitioned to modify child support and later custody.
Father sought primary school-year custody (swap custody) arguing Mother’s moves and Child’s multiple school changes reduced stability and Father could provide consistent schooling and family support in Shelley.
Magistrate found a substantial, material, and permanent change (Mother’s move(s) and Father’s job loss), and modified custody to give Father school-year custody; Mother appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether magistrate abused discretion by modifying custody	No — no substantial/material change; parties followed 2013 order after Mother returned; Mother is primary caretaker and Child thrives in Boise	Yes — Mother’s moves and Father’s job loss are substantial changes; Child needs stability in Shelley with Father and family	Reversed — magistrate abused discretion; Father failed to show changed circumstances warranted custody change in Child’s best interests
Whether appeal attorneys’ fees should be awarded	Mother: fees not warranted	Father: fees requested	Denied — neither side’s appeal conduct was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation

Lamont v. Lamont, 158 Idaho 353, 347 P.3d 645 (discusses abuse-of-discretion review and changed-circumstances requirement)
Doe v. Doe, 161 Idaho 67, 383 P.3d 1237 (explains material, substantial, and permanent change requirement for custody modification)
Chislett v. Cox, 102 Idaho 295, 629 P.2d 691 (moving party bears burden to show changed circumstances and best interests require custody shift)
Strain v. Strain, 95 Idaho 904, 523 P.2d 36 (parental desire alone insufficient to justify modification)
Brownson v. Allen, 134 Idaho 60, 995 P.2d 830 (modification upheld where child suffered academically and emotionally under prior custodian)
Moye v. Moye, 102 Idaho 170, 627 P.2d 799 (warning against overemphasis on a single factor when assessing best interests)
Prescott v. Prescott, 97 Idaho 257, 542 P.2d 1176 (recognizes deference to trial court credibility findings, but only where findings are supported by sufficient evidence)