COOK VS. COOK (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. The court reversed the denial of a custodial parent's motion to relocate with the child to Louisiana under NRS 125A.350 and remanded with instructions to grant it. Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1271-72 (1991), as refined by Jones v. Jones, 110 Nev. 1253, 1266, 885 P.2d 563, 572 (1994), the court reiterated that a custodial parent need not show a significant economic or tangible benefit to satisfy the threshold 'actual advantage' inquiry; a 'sensible, good faith reason' suffices. If that showing is made, the court evaluates the remaining Schwartz factors - focusing on whether reasonable, alternative visitation is possible - and, if it is, the burden shifts to the noncustodial parent to show the move is inimical to the child's best interests. The court held the district court failed to apply this framework, resting its denial almost entirely on the father-daughter relationship. Penny's acceptance of a promotion, higher salary, and higher standard of living was a sensible, good-faith reason satisfying the threshold, and each secondary factor favored her: expert testimony showed the move would reduce the parents' tension harming Cassie; her motives were honorable; she would comply with revised visitation and submit to Nevada jurisdiction (see Jones, 110 Nev. at 1263); the father's abuse allegations were repeatedly unsubstantiated; and she proposed liberal visitation and offered to contribute to transportation. Echoing Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 315, 890 P.2d 1309, 1313 (1995), the court cautioned that NRS 125A.350 must not be used to chain custodial parents to Nevada where reasonable alternative visitation is possible. Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion and establish a liberal visitation schedule and adjusted child support.

In plain language

Penny (now Green) and Robert Cook divorced in 1990 and shared joint legal custody of their daughter Cassie, with Penny having sole physical custody. Penny remarried, and she and her new husband were offered supervisory jobs at a riverboat gambling operation in Louisiana. Because Nevada law requires a custodial parent to get the other parent's consent or the court's permission before moving a child out of state, Penny asked the court for permission to move Cassie to Louisiana. Robert opposed it and, over time, made several reports of abuse and poor living conditions against Penny's household - all of which the Department of Social Services investigated and found unsubstantiated. After a hearing (including a court-appointed psychologist who described the extreme, even 'pathological,' hostility between the parents and Cassie's resulting stress), the district court denied Penny's request, reasoning that the move would harm Cassie's close, regular relationship with her father. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered the district court to grant the move. It explained the governing framework from Schwartz v. Schwartz, as refined by Jones v. Jones: a custodial parent seeking to relocate must first make a threshold showing of a 'sensible, good faith reason' for the move; if she does, the court weighs additional factors, focusing on whether reasonable alternative visitation is possible, and only then does the burden shift to the noncustodial parent to show the move is against the child's best interest. The Court held Penny met the threshold (a promotion, higher salary, and better standard of living), that the secondary factors favored her, and that Robert had not shown the move would harm Cassie - noting his abuse allegations were repeatedly found baseless. The Court warned that NRS 125A.350 should not be used to 'chain' custodial parents (most often women) to Nevada when reasonable alternative visitation is possible, and remanded to grant the move with a liberal visitation schedule and adjusted child support.