GANDEE VS. GANDEE (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam (two cases consolidated for disposition). The court again construed NRS 125A.350 and reversed the denial of relocation in both cases. Governing framework. Following Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309 (1995), Jones v. Jones, 110 Nev. 1253, 885 P.2d 563 (1994), and Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991), a custodial parent must make a threshold showing of 'a sensible, good faith reason for the move' - one not designed to frustrate the noncustodial parent's visitation. If met, the district court must weigh the Schwartz factors (quality-of-life improvement, honorable motives of the custodial parent, compliance with substitute visitation, honorable motives of the objecting parent, and a realistic opportunity for adequate alternative visitation), focusing particularly on the availability of adequate, alternate visitation. Gandee (Docket No. 26209). Kenna made the threshold showing (career advancement) and the record supported each Schwartz factor: greater familial support and improved housing and finances in Medford, comparable special-education resources for a disabled child, honorable motives on both sides, and a workable schedule despite the roughly six-hour distance. The district court abused its discretion by failing even to consider an alternative visitation schedule; reversed and remanded to grant the motion and fix reasonable visitation. Montelione (Docket No. 26241). The district court denied Gayle's move to Colorado solely because the father exercised consistent weekly visitation, despite finding actual advantages to the child. The court held that disruption of weekly visitation cannot be the sole basis for denial; otherwise a custodial parent could never relocate whenever the noncustodial parent exercises weekly visitation, regardless of the move's advantages. Reversed and remanded to grant the motion and fix reasonable, alternative visitation. (Young, J., recused.)

In plain language

This decision resolved two consolidated cases, both about a custodial parent's request to move children out of state under Nevada's relocation statute, NRS 125A.350. In Gandee, the father Kenna Gandee, who had custody, wanted to move his two daughters to Medford, Oregon, for a promotion from sales associate to general manager at Montgomery Ward. One daughter, Brianna, had physical disabilities and special needs. The mother refused consent, and the district court denied the move, reasoning that the only advantage was a few thousand dollars that would be eaten up by travel and lost support, and that the children would lose weekly visits with their mother. The Supreme Court reversed. Kenna made the required threshold showing of a sensible, good-faith reason (career advancement), and all the Schwartz factors favored the move - better family support, housing, finances, and comparable special-education programs; honorable motives on both sides; and a workable long-distance visitation plan (Medford is about six hours away). The district court had abused its discretion by not even considering an alternative visitation schedule. In the companion case (Montelione), the mother Gayle Matlock wanted to move her son Tommy to Colorado to live with her new husband, who had been transferred there. The district court denied the move solely because the boy's father exercised consistent weekly visitation. The Supreme Court reversed again, holding that disruption of weekly visitation cannot be the sole basis for denial - otherwise a custodial parent could never move whenever the other parent has weekly visits, no matter how many advantages the move offers the child. Because the move offered real advantages and reasonable alternative visitation was possible, the court had to allow it. The Court concluded by restating the rule: once a custodial parent shows a good-faith reason for a move, courts must weigh the Schwartz factors and focus particularly on whether a reasonable, alternative visitation schedule is possible.