Woods v. Woods, 422 P.3d 1110

Marya L. Woods (Mother) and Karl E. Woods (Father) divorced in 2011; custody ordered on a rotating seven/ eight-day schedule.
In 2017 both parents sought modification of custody and child support; after a three-day trial the magistrate denied both petitions for lack of a material, substantial, and permanent change in circumstances.
The magistrate found animosity between parents but concluded it predated the decree, had not prevented reasonable co‑parenting, and that changing the schedule would not resolve the children’s loyalty conflict.
Both parents alleged the other engaged in alienation; the court found neither engaged in a systematic effort to estrange the children and that the children maintained loving relationships with both parents.
Mother appealed, arguing the magistrate abused its discretion by failing to find material changes; both parties sought appellate attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12‑121.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a material, substantial, and permanent change warranted custody modification	Mother: Father’s behavior and family dynamics produced a substantial change affecting the children’s best interests	Father: No such change occurred; existing order remains appropriate	No — magistrate’s finding of no qualifying change is supported by substantial evidence
Whether Father engaged in parental alienation	Mother: Evidence (including counselor testimony) shows Father alienated the children	Father: Denies systematic alienation; children retain loving relationships with Mother	No — court found no pattern of conduct amounting to alienation
Whether parental animosity constitutes a material change	Mother: Ongoing toxic animosity materially harms children and justifies modification	Father: Animosity existed before decree and has not prevented reasonable co‑parenting	No — although animosity adversely affected children, it predated the decree and did not prevent reasonable cooperation; schedule change would not help
Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded	Mother: (sought fees)	Father: Sought fees as prevailing party	Denied — Mother not prevailing; court declines to find appeal frivolous and denies Father’s fee request

Adams v. Adams, 93 Idaho 113 (recognizes alienation as grounds for custody modification)
McGriff v. McGriff, 140 Idaho 642 (custody modification affirmed where parental animosity made joint custody unworkable)
Doe v. Doe, 161 Idaho 67 (holding requires a pattern of conduct for alienation; change analysis tied to children’s best interests)