*1 appellee, McLaughlin, McLaughlin, L. v. Rebecca Chadd L. appellant. Sheets, known as Rebecca now 28, 2002. No. S-01 -1137. Filed June *2 Frost, Clarence E. Mock III and E. Denise of & Johnson Mock, for appellant. Head, Lieben, Whitted,
John S. Slowiaczek and Willow T. of P.C., L.L.O., & Houghton, Slowiaczek Cavanagh, appellee. C.J., Wright, Hendry, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, JJ. McCormack, Miller-Lerman,
Connolly, J.
I. NATURE CASE OF Sheets, now McLaughlin, L. known as Rebecca L. a custodial who has remarried wishes to move to Huron, Dakota, South with her new child because of her hus- band’s Chadd her employment. McLaughlin, former husband child, removal, father opposed application district court denied Rebecca’s She We application. appeals. that Rebecca satisfied burden determine her of showing legit- imate reason for the removal and that it was in the best interests the child to continue with her. we reverse. Accordingly,
II. BACKGROUND was in dissolved 1999. In the parties’ marriage April decree, Rebecca and Chadd were awarded joint legal custody their who was almost old at the time the daughter, years appli- cation for removal was filed. Rebecca was awarded primary Chadd was reasonable and custody. given liberal visi- physical He extended tation. was summer or granted visita- holiday tion. Beginning May to a parties agreed visitation schedule that Chadd from gave custody Thursday evening other Sunday evening, weekend. every In Rebecca married April Clayton Sheets. She stated that she continued to work because needed they her income. She $22,000 earned about in the 2000. She year quit job May 2001 to home with her and she and stay daughter, Clayton had a in June 2001. testified that soon after Rebecca and Clayton were married, he for a new began searching so that he could earn income for Rebecca to enough home. His stay background and were in experience agriculture. earned his bachelor’s degree married, sciences in agricultural 1996. When he they worked *3 as an for a national agronomist Gretna, farmers’ in cooperative Nebraska. His duties included scouting fields and farm- giving ers recommendations on their and he crops, also sold seed and addition, chemicals to farmers. In he was required perform hours of manual long labor at the farmers’ cooperative during spring $31,000, summer. His annual base salary was $6,500 he received in bonuses for the 2000. He year stated that he had no virtually for opportunity advancement. looked for new
Clayton Nebraska, in employment but the only offers he received were for farmers’ cooperative positions similar to the one he held in Gretna. He to some applied of the larger seed but did not companies receive an offer. He was offered an outside sales in Omaha position with an insurance company $50,000 paid annually. stated that he did accept posi- tion benefits; it because did not provide required considerable travel; and him to required provide his own vehicle and pay all food, of his travel expenses, including gas, and hotels.
In June received Clayton an offer from Garst Seed Huron, Dakota, in Company South for a district sales manager week, an answer within The company required position. testified that his annual base salary he accepted. Clayton $45,000 scheduling Seed was and that his new offered job Garst office, car, He was a home and benefits. flexibility, company to exceed the that he could earn in bonuses enough confident had earned while in Nebraska. income he and Rebecca together 6,2001, filed for removal and On Rebecca an July application at because was to start an expedited hearing Clayton requested that the new on 17. In his Chadd denied his July response, removal was in the child’s best interests and cross-applied also filed a motion for temporary custody. physical or, end of The August. removal a trial date for the alternatively, removal, was and trial court denied the motion for temporary held on 10. September new
At some between Clayton’s acceptance point trial, their home and the and Rebecca sold Clayton position stated a new home in Huron. Rebecca and purchased Papillion 4- from the Omaha area. that Huron is about a to 472-hourdrive record reflects to Huron to his The begin job. moved Clayton before in Huron for visits that Rebecca and the children stayed the community was able to describe and that she hearing however, testified, that she She and their new home to the court. home with her children at her parents’ was still living Elkhom, Nebraska. with an as and friendly
She described the neighborhood quiet of their home. She school within a of blocks elementary couple their old home but stated that the new home cost no more than much had an additional bedroom and had twice as square was cost-of-living general She believed footage. in Omaha. She also stated that her daugh- lower in Huron than well with and her new half sister. She ter got along of contact with her in Omaha maintained that the loss would be offset the benefits of their new community She stated that her had lifestyle. family already improved plans for visits and that she would visit Omaha to see them. frequently 12,000 reflects that Huron is a record *4 city people. visitation, would Chadd’s she testified that she
Regarding maintain the same visitation schedule until the child began She also to meet Chadd willing halfway every was kindergarten. After the child time for him. the drive other weekend to shorten visitation of 5 school, extended summer an began proposed weekend visitations. for the shortened weeks to compensate court denied the would do if the was asked what she that, stated, removal, we would have “If it came to and she custody would not give up back She stated that she move ...” it she did not believe because if the court denied the application She stated to live with Chadd. in the child’s best interests was with were to continue living the child’s best interests in South Dakota with her children could home because she stay and home would improved and the lifestyle family’s her children She also asserted that new Clayton’s position. she testified Huron than in Omaha. Finally, would be safer in income, she and that because of their increased disposable educations, children’s college could save for their Clayton afford to do in Omaha. which could not they cross-examination, not she and did Clayton she stated On Dakota until intended to move to South inform Chadd that they before had sold they had but after Clayton accepted position, had not inquired their house. Rebecca also stated Clayton that became available about two Garst Seed positions because the he had the Huron position Nebraska after accepted existing extension of the territories only were an positions to new and were not available employees. representatives new he told about Clayton’s Chadd testified that was He June 25 and 2000. South Dakota sometime between time, had but job, that at that already accepted stated He main- the house was listed for sale yet. Chadd did not believe because moved to South Dakota tained that Rebecca had already his while she received a call from he had telephone once stat- message Rebecca had also left a telephone was there. to South Dakota. But he could point were they going ing time she was there. when he thought periods specific but daughter, of his custody that he was not asking stated from the jurisdiction, her removal the court to deny only asking removal, and Rebecca still that if the court denied leave, custody. he would assume wanted to to remain best interests was in the child’s that it Chadd asserted close relationship he in Elkhom because enjoyed with him *5 to his He was concerned her and she was also close very stepson. if maintain his contact with his daughter that he could not daily visitation, were In addition to his granted. Rebecca’s application his at he alternated off daughter picking up dropping attended, and he on the 2 a week that she picked preschool days from on his visitation days. her up daycare believed that his should not be separated Chadd her extended in the Omaha area. He stated that his from family with him and that his wife’s sister was currently living present lived in He stated that Rebecca’s and Clayton’s Elkhom. own lived in the Omaha area also. His parents extended families however, Hebron, a month. and saw the child about once lived in sister, fam- he admitted that he had no extended Other than his he did not in the Omaha area. He also admitted that currently ily when he the child to see members of Rebecca’s family take any had custody. as the ad
An the court to serve guardian attorney appointed child in Chadd’s home litem testified that he had observed the home. He found that generally and at Rebecca’s parents’ child well with both families. Just before testifying, interacted Rizzo, Ph.D., a clinical he had observed a from L. report Joseph He admitted that Chadd hired as an whom expert. psychologist Rizzo had recommended that the grant application Rebecca, (2) was with (1) because the child’s bond primary child, for her to enrich her life and care Rebecca was seeking Huron consistent with his training was Clayton’s job a witness. Chadd did not call Rizzo as and future stability. recommendations, rec- ad litem Rizzo’s guardian Despite ommended that the court removal. deny application was he made his recommendation because Clayton testified that child to South Dakota. He agreed not to move required mother, with her but he thought would be fine moving a desire “to better his position financially Clayton’s [was] a child from her father.” sufficient reason to separate witness, Cahill, Ph.D., clinical Kevin R. a Rebecca’s expert inter- marriage family therapy, psychologist specializing twice, alone and with viewed Rebecca and Chadd separately he found Chadd to be a and com- loving their daughter. Although father, he that the child had a stronger stated developed petent Rebecca had with Rebecca. He believed that because relationship the child’s been her caretaker during infancy, pri- primary was with her. He stated that both parents attachment mary for her well to their child’s demands expectations responded their needs to her and level and could relegate developmental age when child is removed from its pri- needs. But he stated that a number of negative psycho- attachment there are mary parent, effects. logical in favor of the gains weighing
Cahill that the potential opined life, time and atten- more removal were an improved quality Rebecca, easier He stated lifestyle. tion from and quieter, *6 and in best interests—in terms of security it was the child’s harm was the Rebecca to home. stay potential stability—for he that the interaction with Chadd. But stated loss frequent to maintain loss was Rebecca’s stated by willingness mitigated Chadd with visits when she the visitation schedule and provide visits in the summer. returned to see her and for extended family decreased weekend He stated would not be harmed when she started school. stated visitation with Chadd summer, the of the contacts density with visitation in the longer with Chadd could actually greater. for the
Cahill indication that Rebecca had applied saw no the child’s with relationship removal with the intent of damaging He also reviewed Rizzo’s while on the stand Chadd. report with his own. stated that those recommendations were consistent interests to be allowed to Cahill it was the child’s best opined move to South Dakota. rendered its
After the the court closing arguments, parties’ not the bench. The court stated that this court had from judgment whether a career for a custodial parent’s decided improvement reason for legitimate leaving juris- could constitute spouse Nonetheless, had a the court found that Rebecca legiti- diction. not removal. the court did Similarly, question mate reason for the believed, The court the removal. seeking Rebecca’s motives for moved, however, found it signifi- that Rebecca had already before for a searching had not talked to Chadd cant that Rebecca home, recognized The court moving. their listing job, Farnsworth, affirmed in Farnsworth move considered and Denver, from Omaha (1999), was Neb. custodial but found this case because the distinguishable parent’s career were Farnsworth. improved prospects The court next considered the that the move held potential of life for the child and the custodial enhancing quality par- (1) ent. It found that the child’s emotional and needs physical Chadd, (2) would be met with either Rebecca or the child equally (3) was too Rebecca’s income young express preference, would not be enhanced because the income belonged Clayton, (4) the conditions would be housing improved, in Huron were no than in the education advantages greater It Omaha. made no specific finding regarding quality child’s each relationship parent.
The court further found that Cahill had conceded that a sub- reduction in time with Chadd would affect the stantial negatively Nebraska, child and that the ties were in not South Dakota. it the move would The court stated that could not decide whether between the The court antagonize relationship parties. believed that could find work in Nebraska. Based on not in the child’s these the court determined that it was findings, best interests to move to South Dakota and denied application. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR III. that the district court erred assigns finding her burden of that the removal to
she had satisfied proving and in Huron was in the child’s best interests denying appli- for removal. cation
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW determinations, and visitation determina Child custody tions, entrusted to the discretion are matters initially record, court, reviewed de novo on although trial affirmed absent an will normally trial court’s determination 1030, 637 N.W.2d v. 262 Neb. Vogel Vogel, abuse of discretion. (2002). 611 within exists when a judge,
A abuse of discretion judicial elects to act or limits of authorized power, the effective judicial results in a decision from and the selected acting, option refrains a of a substantial litigant which is untenable and unfairly deprives through or a result matters submitted just disposition right 240 Bauerle, 881, 644 N.W.2d Bauerle v. 263 Neb. system. judicial (2002).
128
V. ANALYSIS
minor child to
motion to remove a
on a
In order
prevail
must first satisfy
custodial
parent
another jurisdiction,
the state.
leaving
reason
that he or she has a legitimate
court
threshold,
must next
the custodial parent
After
clearing
continue liv
best interests to
that it is in the child’s
demonstrate
Vogel,supra.
with him or her.
ing
Legitimate
Leave
State
1.
Reason
reason for
Rebecca had a legitimate
The court found that
removal,
could find work Nebraska.
but also found that Clayton
career enhancement
has
determined that a
This court
previously
removal
reason for
legitimate
is a
for a custodial parent’s spouse
See, Harder
after a remarriage.
when the career
occurred
change
Harder,
(1994); Demerath v.
945,
v.
246
[W]e a better securing position leads before locally possible job circumstance, aggravating in another state. Absent some the noncustodial par- as an ulterior motive to frustrate such enrichment is a visitation career rights, significant ent’s motive in and of itself. legitimate Farnsworth, 242, 252-53, 597 N.W.2d Farnsworth advancement we have held that career Because reason for custodial can constitute legitimate for the removal, in Farnsworth to the equally our holding applies of a custodial spouse parent. in Nebraska was offered employment
Although Clayton in an area in which he was not the position an insurance company, him to incur significant expenses had experience required in Harder that the new There was no requirement time. travel testi- of his field. Clayton outside for employment search spouse offered career find a been unable to position that he had fied offered sig- new and that his position in Nebraska advancement *8 field. He was not to required in his chosen nificant opportunities The court acknowledged work outside of his field. accept advancement for We Clayton. career was a considerable change removal. reason for legitimate conclude that Rebecca has shown Child’s Best Interests 2. that she had
Rebecca contends that the court erred finding to find that the move was moved to Huron and in failing already Chadd contends that Rebecca in her best interests. daughter’s consult the by failing acted in bad faith under parenting plan or a decision making him before this Clayton accepted position that that the court found correctly to move. He also contends was in their daughter’s that removal Rebecca had failed prove best interests. another whether removal to jurisdiction
In determining interests, (1) each trial court considers par in the child’s best move; (2) the poten motives for or seeking opposing ent’s life that the move holds for enhancing quality tial a move such impact child and the custodial parent; the noncustodial the child and par will have on contact between ent, visitation. Vogel viewed in the of reasonable light when 637 N.W.2d Vogel, Motives
(a) Each Parent’s
called
plan
that because
parenting
The court determined
with their daughter,
contact
to have expansive
for both parents
Chadd before
have consulted
should
state,
their home.
listing
selling
for a
out of
job
searching
to consult
never
custodial parents
This court has
required
out-of-state employ
before considering
with their ex-spouses
is unrealistic. The
such an issue
consensus on
ment. To expect
almost
situations are
interests in removal
parties’ personal
in their
plan
did agree
parenting
odds. The parties
at
always
that both parents
of their daughter
the best interests
it was in
extent possible.
to the greatest
an
involvement
maintain
ongoing
as a mandate
cannot
interpreted
But such agreements
or her divorced
from his
to seek
permission
custodial
that Rebecca
Chadd testified
career choices.
over future
spouse
June,
about the end
him of the
offer
informed
and Clayton
made. The court erred
after the offer was
which was very shortly
consult with Chadd
Rebecca was
required
in its
finding
*9
could consider out-of-state employment.
before Clayton
that Rebecca had
moved
already
The court also found
of our rule set out
with her
in violation
daughter,
South Dakota
198,
Clinton,
One
Neb.
609
Jack v.
removals. But that concern was
in Jack was
issue
temporary
and intended to
them
discourage
directed toward trial courts
for removal before holding
from granting temporary permission
Further, the evi
on
removal.
a full
and
hearing
ruling
permanent
that Rebecca had
dence
the court’s finding
does
support
before the
his
hearing
begin
moved.
moved
Although Clayton
with her children at her
testified that she was living
Rebecca
job,
that she had already
house.
Chadd’s belief
parents’
Despite
moved,
time
that Rebecca
he could not point
specific
periods
were in South Dakota. He testified that Rebecca
and his daughter
Rebecca was not
interfered with his visitation times.
pro
had not
in South Dakota if the
arrangements
hibited from making living
Harder,
Harder v.
246 Neb.
the removal. See
approved
(1994)
time of
both cus
hearing,
Rebecca did not interfere with Chadd’s visitation by spending
move,
for a
and the
time in South Dakota making preparations
that she intended to avoid the court’s
evidence does not indicate
for removal within weeks
She filed an
jurisdiction.
application
and she testi-
available to
becoming
Clayton,
of the position’s
were
would move back to Nebraska if removal
fied that she
would move
We do not
her statement
denied.
interpret
had moved without court
back to Nebraska to mean that she
per-
mission,
would be
to sell their
willing
but that she
if the court denied the
home in Huron and give up Clayton’s
that Rebecca
court erred to the extent that it found
removal. The
as bad faith
had
moved or
already
imputed
preparations
the
her motives for making
request.
evaluating
motives is
evaluating
parties’
The ultimate question
a removal in an
has elected or resisted
whether either party
See Farnsworth
the other party.
frustrate or manipulate
effort to
Farnsworth,
(1999). There is
(b) of Life Quality In potential that removal to another determining holds for jurisdiction enhancing life of the quality children, removal a court should seeking consider the emotional, (1) factors: following physical, developmental children; (2) needs of the the children’s or opinion as preference live; (3) to where to the extent to which parent’s relocating enhanced; income or (4) will be employment to which degree conditions would housing the existence improved; *10 of (6) educational the advantages; quality relationship between the children (7) and each the parent; of the chil strength there; dren’s ties to the extended present community and and the likelihood that or allowing move would denying Brown, antagonize hostilities between the two Brown v. parties. 954, 260 (2000). Neb. 621 70 N.W.2d This list should not be mis construed as out setting a of factors. on hierarchy Depending case, of circumstances a one factor or particular any combination of may factors be Id. variously weighted.
We conclude that the did court not err in a finding that 4-year- old child too a young express between preference parents. We further conclude that the court not err did that finding Rebecca had failed to show that in their schools new community See, would be schools their Nebraska superior community. Brown, Farnsworth, (educational supra; supra factor advantages receives little no when custodial weight parent fails prove that new schools are We agree also the court that superior). of and conditions for Rebecca and the quality housing child be would the move that by this factor improved weighs for the removal.
The found that either could meet their daughter’s emotional needs. The record both physical confirms that with their concerned genuinely are loving parents
parties it could not tell The court concluded that needs. daughter’s between would antagonize relationship whether the removal have The record indicates that parties cooperated the parties. welfare, and we find their daughter’s well in the past regarding to do that would not continue so they no reason to presume Brown, See We supra. their over the relocation. despite dispute however, with the court’s on other findings quality disagree, life factors.
(i) Enhancement
Income or Employment
the court found that Rebecca had a legiti
Although
relocate, it also found that Rebecca’s income
mate reason to
not be increased
career
Clayton’s
could
by
opportunities.
Harder,
See Harder v.
court erred
this
Neb.
finding.
Harder,
(1994).
(ii) Ties to Community and Extended Family *11 The court also found that the strength child’s ties to the and present community extended family there weighed against removal because all of Rebecca’s extended was in the family Omaha area and because she However, had no family Huron. no evidence was adduced concerning child’s relationships with Rebecca’s extended case, In family. any testified that and she her had family to plans visit often. sister, conceded other than his who was
Chadd that with the time he did not have extended hearing, him at of in the Omaha area. He testified that his saw his parents still that about once a month and that he could provide time visitation with his if the removal were parents granted. facts, Under these this factor receives little de weight our novo review. (iii) Quality Between Child and Relationship Parents of
The court made no specific finding regarding relationship between the child and each It did note that removal parent. would be beneficial with Rebecca and would relationship affect her with The effect negatively Chadd. of relationship removal, however, must be evaluated of child’s rela- light Brown, with each See Brown tionship parent. that because of close rela- (concluding children, and extensive contacts between father
tionship and this factor mother). with weighed against long-distance relocation ad litem that the child guardian reported interacted well with both families. His opinion that removal should be denied was based on his wholly incorrect belief that Clayton’s improved Cahill, financial was an insufficient reason for removal. position however, opined that the child had bonded more strongly Rebecca because Rebecca had been her He caretaker. primary found that Chadd awas father loving competent both well to the child’s parents responded demands expecta- Rebecca, tions. But because of the child’s bond with he primary would benefit from opined Rebecca’s improved lifestyle home with her in Huron. ability stay The court found that Cahill had conceded that a substantial reduction of time with Chadd would affect the child. negatively however, to this Contrary finding, Cahill stated that a child would be affected removal which by a precluded possibility for contact with a He stated that he did not parent. specifically believe the child’s would be well-being affected negatively visitation schedule or the reduced weekend visita- parties’ tions school once started. stated that Rebecca would make effort ensure that the child every relationship kept positive with Chadd and that could a greater density Chadd have actually because extended visitation. contacts summer *12 Rizzo, while that Chadd’s own expert, find it significant
We
allow the reloca-
that the court
recommended
testify,
he did not
We con-
tion,
child’s bond with Rebecca.
because of the
in part,
Rebecca.
is with
relationship
the child’s primary
clude that
(iv)
Conclusion
Quality of Life
(1)
to find that the
failing
that the court erred
We determine
Rebecca, (2)
was with
finding
relationship
child’s primary
enhanced by Clayton’s employ-
income could
Rebecca’s
of the
finding
strength
ment opportunities,
and extended family weighed
to the community
child’s ties
review,
de novo
we conclude that
removal. Under our
against
the removal
satisfied her burden of
proving
Rebecca has
of life for her child and herself.
will enhance the quality
Move on Contact Between Chadd and Child
(c)
Impact
the child
The final consideration
the best interests of
anal-
effect of the relocation
Chadd’s
to main-
upon
ability
is the
ysis
with his
tain a meaningful parent-child relationship
daughter.
This effect must be viewed
court’s
light
ability
devise reasonable visitation
See
arrangements.
Vogel Vogel,
(2002).
262 Neb.
We that courts face in recognize difficulty determining removal, removal issues. In most applications frequency of the noncustodial visitation is to be diminished parent’s likely here, Huron, distance. But the relocation from Omaha to involves no distance greater than some moves which could have been made within the state. to some of the more dis Compared considered, tant relocations this court has on Chadd’s impact Brown, See, visitation is not as great. Kalkowski v. supra; Kalkowski, Chadd will visitation, still have weekend even if it will be somewhat reduced after the child starts school. We determine that Chadd could maintain a meaningful with his after relationship schedule, school starts through reasonable visitation which included extended visitation in the summer.
We conclude in our de novo review that Rebecca has satisfied her burden of that it is in the child’s proving best interests to continue with her. living
VI. CONCLUSION
A custodial
has the burden
that he or
proving
she has a
reason for removal
legitimate
and that it is in the best
interests of the child to continue
with him or
her. Once a
*13
burden,
has met that
parent
he or she will not be
in a
placed
of
position
between
of a child
deciding
and a career
custody
advancement, whether it is his or her own career or the career of
See,
Farnsworth,
a new
242,
spouse.
Farnsworth v.
257 Neb.
Harder,
(1999);
Reversed. Stephan, L, dissenting.
I dissent. I respectfully with the conclusion of the trial agree court and the that Rebecca majority established a rea- legitimate son for relocation the evidence of through enhanced Clayton’s Huron, employment South opportunities Dakota. I also agree with the majority Rebecca was not to consult with required Chadd before could consider out-of-state employment and that the evidence does not a conclusion that support she had actually relocated the child to South Dakota at the time of the on her hearing to do so. I also request with the agree majority that there is no evidence of bad faith on the of Rebecca. part said, That I cannot agree district court abused its discre- tion in to remove denying the child from this state. request
The of crux was my position stated the trial aptly by as judge remarked, “Well, to his from the bench when he preface ruling this is a close case.” review of the record painfully My leads me fit, to the same conclusion. The record precisely discloses two and devoted Both have loving, parents. active roles in played life, their daughter’s and each the recognizes importance other in her continuing Were either of the development. parties However, lesser this would be an parents, easier case to judge. 248 make it an
the admirable exhibited each parent qualities difficult one. extremely reason for the relocation was estab- legitimate
Because lished, turns “best of the child” analy- the case on the interests sis. Neb. N.W.2d Vogel Vogel, Citing (2002), the issue as whether the custodial frames majority is interests to “demonstrate that it in the child’s best can While with or her.” continue him (Emphasis supplied.) and other Vogel this is an accurate statement what we said cases, I it interests” issue under think misstates “best if she is not per- facts of this case. Rebecca testified that granted Dakota, mission relocate she and her new to to South trial, At Chadd only would live in with child. Nebraska child to relocate the that the court Rebecca leave requested deny Thus, and did not ask the to award him. custody court not Rebecca child will continue live with Rebecca whether or district leave to relocate. The issue as to the given presented whether, factors, in the on the basis of all relevant it is was best interests of the child to move South Dakota with Rebecca ad The continue in Nebraska. residing guardian at litem this issue in his recommen- correctly arriving perceived dation for relocation be disallowed. application testified seems to have missed who on behalf Rebecca expert when he that it would be in the best interests of *14 point opined move to maintain with child “to South Dakota and contact —her contact with her custodial her mother.” parent, primary child will This the fact have opinion ignores “primary of contact” with Rebecca as the custodial parent regardless lives in or Dakota. The continuing whether she Nebraska South is an case. of the maternal bond issue in this integrity simply record, I each side As read the there is credible evidence on of to South Dakota holds the issue. move promise certain to in that she would live in a larger benefits the child to in other from the economic ways house and stands benefit new in his Clayton employment. anticipated by opportunities realized, Also, able Rebecca would be if are such opportunities working her instead of to supplement with children home stay income, her expert which she and an arrangement the family It also true the child. is will be beneficial witness believe Huron, Dakota, the distance between Omaha and South is not so visitation; that it would great absolutely preclude regular as the notes, this distance is majority correctly no than some greater intrastate relocations which would not require approval. hand,
On the other ad litem for the guardian child recom- mended that the court not allow the relocation because the benefits to the child did not potential outweigh negative effect of from Chadd. Rebecca separation admitted that the move would make it for virtually Chadd to impossible partici- in his pate daughter’s school activities. She also admitted that under the visitation schedule biweekly in the proposed event relocation, her would 9 hours other spend every weekend automobile traveling by between Rebecca’s in home South Dakota and Chadd’s home in Nebraska. The evidence also establishes that the child’s extended resides in Nebraska. record,
Based de novo review of the I upon my would conclude case, that in their taking respective this each positions sincerely motivated what he or she by believes to be in genuinely the best interests of their child. The relocation would proposed the child’s of life some improve quality as result of respects economic improved opportunities and Rebecca’s children, home with her but the plan stay child’s of life quality would be commute for negatively impacted by long biweekly visitation and the diminished for interaction opportunity extended While the relocation would not elim- family. completely Chadd, inate the visitation it would opportunity regular alter the nature and drastically the visitation he has frequency exercised to date. these factors order to determine Weighing whether to Rebecca to relocate with the child is a difficult permit case, Where, are task. as in this there no absolutes and no clearly answers, it is to bear right clearly wrong particularly important in mind that our standard of review an court to requires appellate deference to the discretion of the trial who observed give judge, the demeanor of the witnesses as he or she heard their testimony. discretion, In order to reverse on the basis of an abuse of we must untenable able to state that the decision of the district court is of a substantial or a unfairly right just deprives litigant result. I cannot reach that on this record. no Finding conclusion discretion, abuse of I would affirm.