In Re Marriage of LaMusga
32 Cal.4th 1072, 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356, 88 P.3d 81 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a 'move-away' case where a final custody order exists, the non-custodial parent must first show that the proposed move will cause detriment to the child. If this burden is met, the court must then determine whether a change of custody is in the child's best interest, considering all relevant factors, including the potential damage to the child's relationship with the non-custodial parent.
Facts:
- Susan and Gary LaMusga married in 1988 and had two sons, Garrett and Devlen.
- After separating in 1996, the parents exhibited significant verbal hostility and conflict.
- Susan was granted primary physical custody of the children, while Gary was granted regular visitation.
- A court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Stahl, observed that Susan was reluctant to support the children's relationship with their father and that this relationship was tenuous.
- In 2001, Susan's new husband accepted a more lucrative job in Ohio, and she sought court permission to relocate there with the children.
- Gary opposed the move, fearing it would effectively end his relationship with his sons.
- Dr. Stahl conducted a further evaluation and concluded that the move posed a significant risk of causing the boys' relationship with their father to regress and potentially be lost, partly because Susan's past conduct suggested she would not support the long-distance relationship.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Poston Navarro filed a petition for dissolution of marriage from Gary Lamusga in California superior court.
- In 1996, the superior court entered an order granting the parents joint legal custody and giving Susan primary physical custody.
- In 2001, Susan filed an order to show cause in the superior court, seeking to modify the custody order to permit her to move with the children to Ohio.
- Gary opposed the motion and requested primary physical custody if Susan moved.
- The superior court, after an evidentiary hearing, denied Susan's request and ordered that primary physical custody would transfer to Gary if she relocated.
- Susan appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the superior court's order, finding it had placed undue emphasis on the detriment to the children's relationship with their father.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by ordering a change in primary physical custody from a mother to a father, contingent on the mother's planned out-of-state move, based on a finding that the move would be detrimental to the children's relationship with their father?
Opinions:
Majority - Moreno, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. A noncustodial parent can obtain a reevaluation of an existing custody order if they demonstrate that the custodial parent's proposed move would cause detriment to the children. Here, Gary Lamusga met this initial burden by showing the move to Ohio would likely be detrimental to his tenuous relationship with his sons. Once that showing was made, the court properly engaged in a 'best interests' analysis, considering all relevant factors. The court reasonably concluded that, given the mother's history of not fostering the children's relationship with their father, the potential loss of that relationship constituted a detriment significant enough to warrant a change in custody if the mother relocated.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court's stated reasoning focused almost exclusively on the potential detriment to the children's relationship with their father while failing to explicitly consider or weigh the undisputed harm that would result from disrupting the children's stable bond with their mother, their primary caretaker. The 'paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements' is a critical factor that the trial court appeared to ignore. By not weighing both potential harms, the court failed to apply the proper legal principles, and a reviewing court should not simply assume that the required balancing occurred when the record suggests it did not.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the holding of In re Marriage of Burgess by detailing the burdens and standards in post-judgment 'move-away' cases. It establishes that while a custodial parent has a presumptive right to move, this right is not absolute and can be overcome if the non-custodial parent shows the move would be detrimental to the child. The decision solidifies that significant harm to the child's relationship with the non-custodial parent is a key form of detriment that can justify a change in custody, giving trial courts considerable discretion to prioritize that relationship over the custodial parent's relocation plans, even when the move is made in good faith.
