Jones v. Jones

• Docket Number: 51599
• Decision Date: 09 July 2024
• Citation: Jones v. Jones, 51599 (Idaho App. Jul 09, 2024)
• Parties: CASEY JONES, nka CASEY WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TIMOTHY JONES, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

CASEY JONES, nka CASEY WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TIMOTHY JONES, Respondent.

No. 51599

Court of Appeals of Idaho

July 9, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Scott H. Hansen, Magistrate.

Judgment modifying child custody, affirmed.

Rivera Law; Nathan D. Rivera, Blackfoot, for appellant. Nathan D Rivera argued.

Baker Harris; Jared M. Harris, Blackfoot, for respondent. Jared M Harris argued.

GRATTON, Chief Judge.

Casey White appeals from the judgment of the magistrate court modifying child custody. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Casey White and Timothy Jones were married in March 2019. They are parents of a two-year-old daughter (Child) and both reside in Blackfoot, Idaho. White filed for divorce in July 2022, and both parties signed a stipulation for divorce and custody of Child. Jones waived the time for answering the divorce complaint and reconciliation period, and further consented to the entry of the decree of divorce in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement agreement were merged into the judgment and decree of divorce. An amended judgment and decree of divorce was filed on September 23, 2022. On October 27, 2022, Jones filed a motion to reopen and a motion to set aside the amended judgment and decree of divorce.

The magistrate court denied Jones' motion to set aside but left pending the motion to reopen. On December 12, 2022 Jones filed an amended verified petition to modify the amended judgment and decree of divorce adding additional allegations of material, substantial, and permanent changes of circumstances. White filed a motion for summary judgment, which the magistrate court denied. The magistrate court then ordered the parties to participate in mediation.

In August 2023, after mediation failed, the parties proceeded to trial on Jones' petition to modify based on the change in circumstances since the divorce decree was entered. The magistrate court found that there was a material and substantial change because White had remarried a person who is stationed in Hawaii with the United States military, and White expressed to Jones that she was going to move with Child and reside with her husband in Hawaii. The magistrate court further found it is in the best interests of Child for Child to remain in Blackfoot and prohibited White from moving Child to Hawaii. The magistrate court denied Jones' request to modify custody to a 50/50 arrangement. White appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a permissive appeal under Idaho Appellate Rule 12.1, the Court reviews the magistrate court's decision without the benefit of a district court appellate decision. Lamont v. Lamont, 158 Idaho 353, 356, 347 P.3d 645, 648 (2015). Decisions regarding child custody are committed to the sound discretion of the magistrate court, and the magistrate court's decision may be overturned on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Id.; see McGriff v. McGriff, 140 Idaho 642, 645, 99 P.3d 111, 114 (2004); Moye v. Moye, 102 Idaho 170, 171, 627 P.2d 799, 800 (1981).

When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018). An 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 a particular custody award or modification. Gray v. Gray, 171 Idaho 128, 136, 518 P.3d 1185, 1193 (2022). A trial court's findings of fact which are based upon substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, which is to say the findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Reed v. Reed, 137 Idaho 53, 56, 44 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2002).

III. ANALYSIS

White appeals from the magistrate court's judgment modifying child custody. Specifically, White argues there was not a material and substantial change in conditions and circumstances to modify the amended judgment. White contends that the magistrate court could not modify the terms of the settlement agreement because they are contractual. White argues the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to modify the terms of the settlement agreement because the issue was not ripe in that White had not moved to Hawaii. White further asserts that a term in the settlement agreement contained in the amended judgment already establishes a revised custody arrangement when a parent moves farther than 120 miles, and thus, White moving to Hawaii with Child does not present a material and substantial change in circumstances to modify the custody arrangement. Jones argues that White's move to Hawaii would produce a permanent and substantial change in the conditions of their current custody arrangement.

A. Modification of Child Custody

As an initial matter, the magistrate court had jurisdiction to modify the amended judgment, including the settlement terms merged therein. The Idaho Supreme Court has long stated that "a district court has not only jurisdiction in divorce proceedings, but continuing jurisdiction over questions involving the custody of minor children." Dey v. Cunningham, 93 Idaho 684, 686, 471 P.2d 71, 73 (1970) (emphasis added); see also Stewart v. Stewart, 32 Idaho 180, 185, 180 P. 165, 166 (1919). White cites to no controlling authority for the proposition that the magistrate court cannot alter the terms of its judgment which have been stipulated to by the parties. In Evans v. Sayler, 151 Idaho 223, 254 P.3d 1219 (2011), the Court noted that the magistrate court was not making a blanket statement that a parent who stipulates to a custody change cannot later demonstrate a change in circumstances. Id. at 227-28 254 P.3d at 1223-24. Further, the law in Idaho is well settled that divorce decrees and orders affecting the custody and support of children are subject to the continuing control of the court and do not become final. Pottenger v. Charlton, 172 Idaho 154, 159-60, 530 P.3d 701, 706-07 (2023). Consequently, the magistrate court had the ability to modify the custody order upon a finding of material and substantial change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child. Id. at 160, 530 P.3d at 707. See also Brownson v. Allen, 134 Idaho 60, 63, 995 P.2d 830, 833 (2000) (When determining whether to modify the original custody order, "the paramount concern is the best interest of the child.").

Turning to the question of ripeness, White fails to show that the magistrate court cannot find a material and substantial change in circumstances before a party actually moves out of state with a child subject to a custody order.^[1] First, White claims that, "at the time of the hearing, [she] had not moved, nor did she have specific plans to do so," and "[a]s it stands, [she] never moved, and has no intention of moving." However, at trial, White was asked whether she was intending to move to Hawaii, to which she answered "Yes."

In Osteraas v. Osteraas, 124 Idaho 350, 859 P.2d 948 (1993), the mother had primary physical custody and indicated an intent to move out of state. The Court said:

We disagree with the district court's conclusion that the father failed to make a sufficient showing of a substantial change of circumstances. The mother, the primary physical custodian of the children, intended to move to the state of Washington and to take the children with her. Such a move would obviously render it impossible for the father to continue seeing the children two weekends a month and every Wednesday night, per his decreed visitation rights, thus requiring the court to modify the divorce decree appropriately.

Osteraas, 124 Idaho at 353, 859 P.2d at 951. See also Bartosz v. Jones, 146 Idaho 449, 453, 197 P.3d 310, 314 (2008) (modification of decree where father learned mother who had primary physical custody intended to move to Hawaii). The magistrate court acted within its authority to modify the custody provisions in the circumstance where White indicated an intent to move to Hawaii.

White contends that the magistrate court erred in finding a material and substantial change of circumstances. The magistrate court found there was a material and substantial change in circumstances because a move to Hawaii would undoubtedly adversely affect the relationship between Jones and Child. White contends that because the settlement agreement, merged into the amended judgment, has a relocation provision, a move was within the contemplation of the parties, and the magistrate court erred by finding there was a material and substantial change in circumstances with her proposed relocation to Hawaii. In the current custody arrangement, White has primary physical custody of Child. Jones has custody of Child each week: week one from Wednesday at 6:30 pm to Friday at 6:30 pm and week two Friday at 6:30 pm to Sunday at 6:30 pm. The amended decree also provides for some holiday visitations. Under the settlement agreement terms, the parties have a relocation provision that applies if either Jones or White (or both) relocate such a distance that makes the above visitation unreasonable, which would be more than 120 miles. In that circumstance, Jones would have visitation the week of spring break, summer vacation, Thanksgiving break, and one week of Christmas break.

...