Fraiser v. Fraiser (Child Custody)

 consider (1) whether the move will improve the quality of life for both the
child and the requesting parent; (2) whether the relocation motion was
filed to frustrate or defeat the visitation rights of the nonrequesting
parent; (3) whether the requesting parent will comply with any visitation
orders entered by the court after the relocation motion is granted; (4)
whether the nonrequesting parent's motives are honorable in opposing the
motion or "to what extent, if any, the opposition is intended to secure a
financial advantage in the form of ongoing support obligations or
otherwise"; and (5) whether there will be a realistic opportunity for the
nonrequesting parent "to maintain a visitation schedule that will
adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship" if the relocation
motion is granted. Schwartz, 107 Nev. at 382-83, 812 P.2d at 1271.
Because Druckman was decided after the filing of this appeal,
the district court granted respondent's motion to modify custody and
relocate with the minor children to Tennessee without considering the
Schwartz factors or whether respondent had a good-faith basis for the
move. See Druckman, 130 Nev. at , 327 P.3d at 515; see also Wallace v.
Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019-20, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that
this court reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order and remand this matter
to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. We vacate
the stay imposed by our January 17, 2014, order.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Hardesty
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
Pecos Law Group
Black & LoBello
Eighth District Court Clerk
3