AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between Glenn Felty, the Defendant-Appellant, and Julie Beakey, his ex-wife and the Plaintiff-Appellee, regarding the custody arrangement of their minor daughter, Margaux. Beakey planned to move to Oklahoma following her remarriage, which prompted a request to alter the existing custody arrangement to allow her to take Margaux with her.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Glenn Felty): Argued that there was insufficient evidence of a substantial and material change in circumstances to justify altering the custody arrangement, contending that the change was supported solely by Beakey's testimony. Felty also argued that it was not in Margaux's best interest to move to Oklahoma with Beakey, as it would place Margaux away from him without necessity.
• Appellee (Julie Beakey): Supported the district court's decision, arguing that her remarriage and subsequent relocation constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances. Beakey maintained that it was in Margaux's best interest to move with her to Oklahoma, emphasizing the sufficiency of her testimony to support the district court's findings.

Legal Issues

• Whether Beakey's remarriage and plan to move to Oklahoma constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination that it was in Margaux’s best interest to move with Beakey to Oklahoma.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order permitting Julie Beakey to take her daughter, Margaux, with her to Oklahoma.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The Court found that Beakey's remarriage and intended relocation to Oklahoma represented a substantial and material change in circumstances, aligning with precedent that a distant relocation by one parent triggers a change in circumstances affecting parenting agreements. The Court also determined there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that it was in Margaux’s best interest to move with Beakey to Oklahoma. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal and viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Felty's arguments were considered but ultimately not persuasive, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision.