Nevada court approves judge’s ruling allowing child’s relocation

Family Court Judge William Gonzalez did not abuse his discretion when he approved a mother’s out-of-state move with her child, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

“We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the mother’s motion for primary physical custody and relocation because the court considered all the relevant and necessary factors, including the reasons for the relocation and the child’s best interest, before making the determination,” Justice Michael Douglas wrote in the majority opinion.

The case involves two parents, Audria Ruscitti and Ian Druckman, who had a child together but were never married.

After the couple separated, Ruscitti moved with the child to California for better job opportunities, without Druckman’s consent or knowledge. They did not have a judicial custody order.

Druckman filed a motion in Family Court for the child’s immediate return and for an award of primary physical custody. Ruscitti then asked the court to award her primary physical custody and to allow the child to remain with her in California. Gonzalez granted the mother’s requests.

The Supreme Court used its opinion in the case to clarify its ruling in a 2005 case, Potter v. Potter.

In considering a motion to relocate and determining the parents’ custodial rights, according to the Potter decision, the court must decide “whether it is in the best interest of the child to live with parent A in a different state or parent B in Nevada.”

The high court clarified the Potter ruling by concluding that judges must incorporate five factors into the best-interest analysis.

Those factors were established in the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Schwartz v. Schwartz. They include: the extent to which the move is likely to improve the quality of life for both the child and the custodial parent; whether the custodial parent’s motives are honorable; whether the noncustodial parent’s motives are honorable in opposing the move; and whether the noncustodial parent will have a realistic opportunity to maintain a visitation schedule “that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship with the noncustodial parent.”

According to Thursday’s opinion, Gonzalez found a good faith reason for Ruscitti’s move: her employment opportunities in California and the fact that the parents previously had contemplated moving together out of state.

However, the high court reversed Gonzalez’s order sanctioning Druckman with attorney fees in the case and sent that matter back to the judge for reconsideration.

Four justices concurred with Douglas’ opinion: Mark Gibbons, Kristina Pickering, James Hardesty and Ron Parraguirre.

Justice Nancy Saitta wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority “fails to fully recognize that Audria’s removal of the child from the state without Ian’s consent or prior judicial authorization was wrongful.”

“I am deeply concerned that the majority opinion may encourage an unmarried parent to relocate the child without the other parent’s knowledge or consent in an effort to create an unfair advantage in a custody determination,” she wrote.

Justice Michael Cherry agreed with the dissenting opinion.

Another father has appealed Gonzalez’s decision in a move case and is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court. In that case, Gonzalez granted Cecilia Peterson’s request to relocate with her two daughters to Sweden.

The woman’s ex-husband, Shane, argues Gonzalez abused his discretion by allowing the move. The father’s lawyer wants the high court to make it more difficult for parents involved in Nevada custody cases to move out of the United States with their children.

Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Find her on Twitter: @CarriGeer.