Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealhearingtrialdivorceobjection

attorneystatuteappeal

Related Cases

Bergerson v. Zurbano, 6 Wash.App.2d 912, 432 P.3d 850

Facts

Ethan Bergerson and Maria Zurbano divorced in 2012 and agreed to a parenting plan that initially allowed the child to reside primarily with the mother. In 2016, they modified the plan to a 50-50 custody arrangement. The father later filed a notice to relocate with the child from Seattle to Baltimore, citing his wife's job opportunity. The mother objected, leading to a court hearing where the trial court concluded that the CRA did not apply to their 50-50 parenting plan and dismissed both the father's petition and the mother's objection.

In 2016, the court approved a new, mutually agreed-upon parenting plan. The plan changed so “[re]sidential time shall be equally shared on a 50/50 basis, adhering to a 2-2-5-5 biweekly schedule.”

Issue

Whether the Child Relocation Act (CRA) applies to a 50-50 parenting plan and if the trial court erred in dismissing the father's petition to relocate.

Whether a court erred in its interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law we review de novo.

Rule

The Child Relocation Act (CRA) does not apply to parenting plans where parents share equal custody (50-50), as neither parent is considered to have the child residing with them a majority of the time.

In a 50/50 residential schedule, neither parent is ‘a person with whom the child resides a majority of the time,’ so neither parent is entitled to the CRA's presumption permitting relocation.

Analysis

The court analyzed the CRA's provisions and determined that the statute's presumption allowing relocation is not applicable in a 50-50 custody arrangement. The court referenced previous cases that established the CRA's inapplicability in such situations, emphasizing that both parents are equally fit and that the CRA's protections are designed for cases where one parent has primary custody.

Because the court found the parties have a 50/50 parenting plan and the CRA does not apply to 50/50 plans, the father cannot petition for relocation pursuant to the CRA.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the father's petition to relocate, concluding that the CRA does not apply to a 50-50 parenting plan.

Therefore, we affirm.

Who won?

Maria Zurbano prevailed in the case as the court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the father's relocation petition, affirming that the CRA does not apply to their 50-50 parenting plan.

The mother was not entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Ex parte Christopher, 145 So.3d 60

In re Marriage of Davis, 252 P.3d 530

McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d 725

In re Marriage of Vaughan, 812 N.W.2d 688

Wolfe v. Wolfe, 46 Ohio St.2d 399, 350 N.E.2d 413, 75 O.O.2d 474