CIESLUK V. CIESLUK
113 P.3d 135 (2005)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Michelle (W) appealed a judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals
that affirmed an order denying her motion to modify parenting time in that a relocation was
not in the best interest of the child.
FACTS: Christopher (H) and W married in Nebraska in 1995. They had one child born on
February 27, 1997. In September 2002, H and W amicably divorced. W is the primary
residential parent for school residency and other legal residential requirements; H has
parenting time on two weekends and two weekday evenings per month. H and W have joint
parental responsibility and decision-making authority. W was laid off from Sprint and sought
alternative employment in Colorado and in Arizona, where her father, brother, sister-in-law,
and nephew reside. Sprint interviewed her for a position in Arizona. Sprint refused to
extend her an offer until she committed to relocating to Arizona. W filed a motion to modify
parenting time to allow her to relocate to Arizona with the child. W gave H four unscheduled
visits per year with thirty days notice, one week at Christmas, two weeks during the summer,
and one week at spring break. W proposed to pay half the airfare costs associated with these
visits. H opposed the motion and moved for the appointment of a special advocate to
determine the child's best interests. The special advocate recommended that it was in the
child's best interests to stay in close proximity to both W and H. The court denied W's
motion in that W had failed to show the move would enhance the child's life. The court of
appeals affirmed the trial court. H appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment