Peterson v. Peterson (Child Custody)

 reason to move constitutes an actual advantage); Schwartz v. Schwartz,
107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1271 (1991). If the court finds an
actual advantage, the court must then weigh the relevant factors set forth
in Schwartz. Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 314-15, 890 P.2d 1309, 1312-13
(1995). Under Schwartz, when determining whether to grant a parent's
motion to relocate, the court must consider whether (1) the move will
likely improve the custodial parent and the child's qualify of life; (2) the
custodial parent's motives are honorable; (3) the custodial parent will
comply with the court's visitation orders; (4) the noncustodial parent's
motives for resisting the move are honorable; and (5) the noncustodial
parent will have a realistic opportunity to exercise visitation if the move is
approved, so that the parent's relationship with the child will be
adequately fostered. 107 Nev. at 382-83, 812 P.2d at 1271.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting respondent's motion to relocate with the minor children. Wallace
v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that
this court reviews district court child custody decisions for an abuse of
discretion). The record demonstrates that while the district court
acknowledged the difficulty involved in allowing a parent to relocate to a
foreign country with the minor children, the court conducted a lengthy
analysis of respondent's basis for requesting the relocation and each of the
Schwartz factors before granting respondent's motion. Further, despite
appellant's assertion to the contrary, Schwartz does not require a change
in circumstances to occur before a party seeks to relocate. Schwartz, 107
Nev. at 382, 812 P.2d at 1270 (explaining that tlemoval of minor
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A em
children from Nevada by the custodial parent is a separate and distinct
issue from the custody of the children"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
J .
Hardesty
6 ,VA
Dirdi , J.
Douglas
Cherry
cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division
Pecos Law Group
Zernich Law Office
Eighth District Court Clerk
1 We have determined that this appeal should be submitted for
decision on the fast track statement and response and the appellate record
without oral argument. See NRAP 3E(g)(1); see also NRAP 34(0(1).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A