Jeffrey R. Arnott v. Paula a/k/a Polly A. Arnott
2012 WY 167, 293 P.3d 440 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A custodial parent's significant relocation may, by itself, constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a judicial review of the custody arrangement to determine the best interests of the children, and no legal presumption should be applied that favors the relocating parent.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Arnott (Father) and Paula Arnott (Mother) were married in 2001 and lived in Jackson, Wyoming.
- The couple had two daughters, born in 2005 and 2008.
- They divorced in 2010, agreeing to joint legal custody, with Mother having primary physical custody and Father having extensive, specified visitation.
- The divorce decree required Mother to provide notice if she intended to relocate.
- On July 8, 2011, Mother notified Father of her intent to move with the children to Mechanicsville, Virginia, a distance of over 2,000 miles from Jackson, Wyoming.
Procedural Posture:
- Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate with the children to Virginia.
- Father filed a petition for modification of custody in the district court, alleging the move was a material change in circumstances.
- The district court issued a temporary order preventing Mother from moving the children out of state pending a hearing.
- After a hearing, the district court, applying the precedent from Watt v. Watt, found that Father had failed to establish a material change in circumstances because of the strong presumption favoring the custodial parent's right to relocate.
- The district court denied Father's petition to modify custody and subsequently entered a revised long-distance visitation order.
- Father, as the appellant, appealed the district court's denial of his petition to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
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 custodial parent's significant interstate relocation constitute a material change of circumstances sufficient to allow a court to consider modifying a child custody order, without applying a presumption in favor of the relocating parent's right to move?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, Justice
Yes. A custodial parent's relocation can constitute a material change of circumstances, and the prior rule establishing a strong presumption in favor of the relocating parent is overturned. The court's prior precedent in Watt v. Watt was poorly reasoned because it exclusively focused on the custodial parent's constitutional right to travel while ignoring other competing and equally important rights. These include the non-custodial parent's fundamental right to familial association, the children's right to associate with both parents, and the state's compelling interest in protecting the best interests of the children. The court noted a modern trend away from using rigid presumptions in relocation cases, instead favoring a fact-sensitive inquiry that balances the interests of all parties. A significant relocation almost inevitably makes an existing parenting plan unworkable and introduces new facts, justifying a full hearing on the children's best interests without unfairly favoring either parent.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Wyoming's family law jurisprudence by explicitly overturning the precedent set in Watt v. Watt. It eliminates the strong presumption that favored a custodial parent's right to relocate, which had created a high barrier for non-custodial parents seeking to modify custody in such situations. By aligning with the national trend that treats a significant relocation as a potential material change in circumstances, the ruling ensures that courts will conduct a full 'best interests of the child' analysis. This change provides non-custodial parents a more meaningful opportunity to be heard and re-centers the judicial focus on the children's welfare over a single parent's right to travel.
Unlock the full brief for Jeffrey R. Arnott v. Paula a/k/a Polly A. Arnott