In re Marriage of Brown and Yana
38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610, 37 Cal. 4th 947, 127 P.3d 28 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A noncustodial parent seeking to modify a final sole custody order due to the custodial parent's proposed relocation is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing; the noncustodial parent must first make a prima facie showing that the move will cause detriment to the child.
Facts:
- In 1994, Nicole F. Brown and Anthony Yana dissolved their marriage.
- In 1999, following a contested hearing and psychological evaluations, a court awarded Brown sole legal and sole physical custody of their son, Cameron.
- Both Brown and Yana continued to reside in San Luis Obispo County after the custody order.
- Brown remarried and had two other children with her new husband.
- In 2003, Brown informed Yana that she intended to move with Cameron, then 12 years old, and her new family to Las Vegas, Nevada, because her husband had accepted a job there.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Yana (father) filed an order to show cause in the trial court to restrain Nicole F. Brown (mother) from relocating with their son and requested an evidentiary hearing to modify custody.
- The trial court denied Yana's requests to restrain the move and for an evidentiary hearing on custody modification.
- Yana, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court, holding that Yana was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
- Brown, as petitioner, petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
- The Supreme Court of California granted Brown's petition for 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:
Is a noncustodial parent, who opposes a planned relocation by the parent with sole legal and physical custody, automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the move and seek a custody modification?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. A noncustodial parent who opposes a relocation by the parent with sole legal and physical custody is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Under the 'changed circumstance' rule, the noncustodial parent bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the proposed relocation will cause detriment to the child. A trial court has the discretion to deny a request for an evidentiary hearing if the noncustodial parent's allegations or showing of detriment are insubstantial or legally insufficient. In this case, Yana's offer of proof, which consisted of general negative statistics about Las Vegas and evidence of the child's conflicted feelings about moving, was insufficient to establish the required detriment to warrant a full evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request without taking live testimony.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural threshold for noncustodial parents challenging a 'move-away' by a parent with sole custody. It solidifies the principle that the burden is on the noncustodial parent to demonstrate specific detriment to the child, rather than allowing for automatic evidentiary hearings based on a mere objection to the move. This protects the decision-making authority of the sole custodial parent and promotes judicial economy by filtering out challenges that lack a substantial basis. The ruling effectively raises the bar for noncustodial parents, requiring them to present concrete, specific evidence of potential harm to the child at the outset to justify further litigation.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Brown and Yana