## Facts

- John Doe (Father) and Jane Doe (Mother) divorced and had one minor child.
- The divorce decree awarded the parties joint legal custody and joint physical custody, with Mother having primary physical custody.
- After the decree, Mother repeatedly made it difficult for Father to exercise parenting time.
- When Father arrived at scheduled times to visit the child, Mother and the child were sometimes absent.
- Mother told Father the child was sick and that visitation could not occur, even when the child was not sick.
- Mother engaged in other erratic behavior and made up false stories aimed at preventing Father from seeing the child.
- Father petitioned in the magistrate division to modify custody, seeking sole legal custody and primary physical custody.
- The court appointed a custody evaluator, who testified that the existing custody arrangement was detrimental to the child due to Mother’s behavior and that it was affecting the child’s relationship with Father.
- After trial, the magistrate found Mother was completely irrational regarding shared custody and visitation, found a substantial and material change in circumstances, and awarded Father sole legal custody and primary physical custody, with Mother receiving visitation.
- Mother appealed to the district court (acting in its appellate capacity), which affirmed; Mother then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the magistrate court abused its discretion in finding a substantial and material change in circumstances after the original custody decree.
2. Whether the magistrate court abused its discretion in concluding that awarding Father sole legal custody and primary physical custody was in the child’s best interests.
3. Whether the magistrate court’s key factual findings about Mother’s conduct and its effect on the child were supported by substantial and competent evidence.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, which had affirmed the magistrate court’s custody modification order.
- The Court held the magistrate did not abuse its discretion in finding a substantial and material change in circumstances based on Mother’s persistent interference with visitation and irrational conduct affecting the child.
- The Court held the magistrate did not abuse its discretion in determining that the child’s best interests were served by awarding Father sole legal custody and primary physical custody.
- The Court declined to reweigh evidence and deferred to the magistrate court’s credibility determinations and factfinding where supported by the record.
- The Court awarded Father attorney fees on appeal because Mother’s appeal lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact.

## Legal Principles

- A custody modification requires a two-step showing: (1) a substantial and material change in circumstances since the prior custody order, and (2) that the requested change is in the child’s best interests.
- Repeated interference with court-ordered visitation and conduct that damages the child’s relationship with the other parent can constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances.
- In determining best interests under Idaho Code § 32-717, the court may consider any relevant factor, including each parent’s ability and willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent and the child’s need for stability.
- Custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings will be upheld if supported by substantial and competent evidence.
- An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s on credibility and weight of the evidence when the record supports the findings.
- Attorney fees on appeal may be awarded when an appeal is pursued without a reasonable basis in fact or law.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the transfer of sole legal custody and primary physical custody to Father because substantial evidence showed Mother persistently obstructed visitation and acted irrationally in ways that harmed the child and the child’s relationship with Father, and the magistrate’s best-interests determination and exercise of discretion were supported by the record.


Doe v. Doe, 239 P.3d 774 (2010)