Clair v. Clair
| Decision Date | 06 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 39188.,39188. |
| Citation | 281 P.3d 115,153 Idaho 278 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles Malcom CLAIR, Jr., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Tracy Jo CLAIR, Defendant–Appellant. |
Nick L. Nielson, Pocatello, argued for appellant.
Belzer Law Office, Pocatello, for respondent. Frederick F. Belzer argued.
Myers Law Office, PLLC, Pocatello, for respondent.
This case concerns the divorce action between Appellant Tracy Jo Clair (Tracy) and Respondent Charles M. Clair, Jr. (Charles). At issue is the magistrate court's decision finding in the best interest of Tracy's and Charles's child to reside primarily in Pocatello, Idaho. The custody plan contained alternative options depending on whether and when Tracy would relocate back to the Pocatello area after moving to Ely, Nevada, following the couple's separation. Additionally, we address an issue concerning the introduction of the custody evaluator's opinions regarding an acceptable custody arrangement. Based upon the facts of this case we affirm the magistrate court's decision.
Charles and Tracy were married on November 19, 1993, in Ely, Nevada. C.C., the parties' only natural child, was born in 2007, in Reno, Nevada. In June 2010, the parties separated near the time that Charles took a new job as a physician in Moscow, Idaho, after serving his residency in Pocatello, Idaho, at the Family Practice Residency Department at Idaho State University. Upon separation, Tracy and C.C. moved to Ely, Nevada, to live with her parents.
Charles filed a complaint for divorce on July 19, 2010, in Bannock County, Idaho, claiming irreconcilable differences. Tracy filed a complaint for divorce in Latah County, Idaho, on July 22, 2010, citing irreconcilable differences pursuant to I.C. § 32–603(8). The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the complaints into the case in Bannock County and agreed to treat Tracy's complaint as a counterclaim. During this period, the magistrate court filed an order prohibiting the parties from removing the child from the state without leave of the court. This order was not observed by Tracy, nor sought to be enforced by Charles. On January 19, 2011, the magistrate court agreed to the parties' stipulation and filed an order allowing Linwood Vereen, Ph.D. to perform a custody evaluation for the determination of the best custody arrangement. Four months later the magistrate court set the matter for trial, and in June 2011, granted the parties a decree of legal separation. In the time between the initial filings and the date of trial, the magistrate court agreed to several stipulations between the parties for monthly custody arrangements. The trial took place June 1–3, and July 21–22, 2011. The magistrate court filed its Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Order on August 16, 2011. The magistrate judge found that Tracy has a B.S. in English from Weber State University and a B.S. in English Education from Utah Valley State College, with certifications to teach, and teaching experience, in both Idaho and Nevada. Tracy's teaching experience included a two-year, full-time position at Pocatello High School. Next, the court found that Tracy had applied for teaching positions in Nevada, and before the trial, received an offer from a school in Reno that she intended to accept. The magistrate judge also found that Tracy intended to remain a resident of Nevada and have C.C. reside primarily with her. Finally, the court found that after the separation, Tracy had "motivational issues" for several months; that during separation, she had "limited the father's access to the child and ... made arranging visits between father and son more difficult than it should have been"; and that in Tracy's opinion, C.C. suffered from separation anxiety and should not be away from her for visits as long as the father had proposed. As for Charles, the magistrate court found that he had purchased a home in Pocatello, three blocks from the public school C.C. would begin to attend; that he had paid the majority of costs for support, debts, and obligations during the separation; and that he had proposed to pay a sum for child support larger than what was required of him if Tracy would relocate to Pocatello and share custody with him on a weekly basis—a proposal that was rejected by Tracy. The court further stated:
The father has sacrificed financially to be able to spend time with his son and to be a part of his son's life. The father gave up a job in Moscow, Idaho to move closer to [C.C.]. He gave up a $40,000.00 bonus to move to Moscow and take the position he had, $30,000.00 of which he and the mother received and spent and which he must repay. He gave up student loan debt forgiveness that would have erased approximately $223,000.00 in student loan debt over the next eight years. The Moscow position was in an underserved rural area and his position in Pocatello is not. He will not receive student loan debt forgiveness in Pocatello. He gave up an annual salary of $225,000.00 to take a faculty position with Idaho State University for an annual salary of $156,000.00.
The counselor that performed the custody evaluation for the parties, Linwood Vereen, Ph.D., LPC, testified at trial. His evaluation was based on interviews with the parents, parent-child observations, home visits, and discussions with contacts provided by the parties. Dr. Vereen testified that both parents were effective and had demonstrated a loving relationship with C.C. Dr. Vereen's testimony regarding recommendations for parenting time and the best interests of the child were not permitted into evidence pursuant to I.R.E. 702 for lack of foundation. The parties did not stipulate that he could offer expert opinion testimony at trial.
The magistrate court divided the community property and debts pursuant to an agreement between the parties and held that it was in the best interests of the child to remain in Idaho under a shared custody arrangement. Based upon a finding that Tracy did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was in C.C.'s best interest to move to Nevada with her, the magistrate court created a custody arrangement with alternative plans depending on Tracy's decision whether she would relocate to the Pocatello area. First, if Tracy returned to the Pocatello area within 120 days of the court's order, the custody would be shared on a 65/35% basis in favor of Tracy, with Charles paying $1,016 in monthly child support. Next, if Tracy returned after four months, but within a year, the physical custody would be evenly split between the parties, and Charles would be required to pay $677 per month in child support. Finally, if Tracy remained in Nevada, a custody agreement would be structured around C.C. staying with his father during the school year and with his mother during the summer months, with the mother paying a child support payment of $244 per month. A judgment and decree of divorce was filed on August 16, 2011, reflecting these provisions for the legal and physical custody.
The parties had conflicting interpretations of the court's order, and subsequent to a hearing, the magistrate entered amended filings on August 25, 2011, making clear that the custody option for a 65/35% split would begin at the time of Tracy's arrival in Pocatello. Tracy filed a motion to stay portions of the amended judgment, seeking to allow C.C. to stay with her until she could find work in the Pocatello area and save up enough money to relocate; she also asked that the radius for relocating be extended beyond Pocatello to Twin Falls. Subsequent to a post-judgment hearing held at the behest of Tracy, the magistrate court filed a second amended order and judgment. The magistrate court addressed some of the mother's previously stated concerns including a clerical error and changing all references to the child from the child's first and last name to "C.C." The magistrate court also amended the dates to allow Tracy an additional month to return to Pocatello for the 65/35% custody split as she had already leased a home in Reno, and the winter break at the school from which she accepted a teaching position did not begin until the day after the initial 120 day deadline. Tracy timely appealed from the seconded amended judgment to the Supreme Court.
Child custody determinations made by a magistrate court are reviewed by this Court under an abuse of discretion standard. Schneider v. Schneider, 151 Idaho 415, 420, 258 P.3d 350, 355 (2011) (citing Hoskinson v. Hoskinson, 139 Idaho 448, 454, 80 P.3d 1049, 1055 (2003) ). Under this standard of review, the Court asks first whether the magistrate court correctly perceived the custody issue as one of discretion; then whether the magistrate court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to the court; and finally, whether the magistrate court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Schultz v. Schultz, 145 Idaho 859, 861–62, 187 P.3d 1234, 1236–37 (2008). An abuse of discretion is found when the magistrate court's "findings are clearly erroneous such that the court's findings are not based on substantial and competent evidence." Schneider, 151 Idaho at 420, 258 P.3d at 355. In a decision regarding a custody award or modification, "[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the evidence is insufficient to support a magistrate's conclusion that the interests and welfare of the children would be best served" by the magistrate court's order. Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710, 713, 170 P.3d 375, 378 (2007).
For issues involving the introduction of evidence, this Court also reviews the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Perry, 139 Idaho 520, 521, 81 P.3d 1230, 1231 (2003). The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence, and to determine whether a witness is...
To continue reading
Request your trial