Marshall v.

Marshall Case Brief

Case name, Marshall v. Marshall, 2245 P.3d 47 (Fran. 2017)

citation
Facts Forest claims the trial court failed to appropriately consider the significance of a
short-term distance relationship with the objecting parent as a determinative factor
in Michael’s best interests.
Section 109 declares the court must fairly weigh the presence of a loving
relationship between the child and each parent and the rights of both custodial
parents.
Under Section 109, Forest has the right to rebut against Sue Ellen’s petition by
demonstrating its embarkment is not in good faith or it is harmful to Michael.
Procedural The District Court, Brown County, Anita C. Hall rejected petition by Sue Ellen
history Marshall to move to Columbia.
The Franklin Court of Appeals, Colbert J. reversed the district court’s ruling based
on improper application of judicial presumption in favor of petitioner.
The Supreme Court of Franklin, Justice Andrews remanded the case back to the
district court based on incomplete evidence regarding the district court’s reasoning.
Issue(s) Petitioner is seeking permission to move with child out of state, however,
Respondent-appellate counters the move is not in the best interests of their child.
(OR)
Whether the parent with primary physical custody has predominant influence over
the other parent regarding the physical environment of the child.
Holding(s) The court answered the legal issue by remanding the case back to the district court
based on the impact of Respondent-appellant’s rebuttal.

Rule(s) Section 109 of the Franklin Dissolution of Marriage Act: (1) parent must present
legitimate reason for move (2) upon acquisition of legitimate reason, a presumption
in favor of petitioning parent is created (3) other parent is permitted to rebut against
petition by showing it is motivated by ill intentions or not in the best interests of the
child.
Reasoning Court could not determine whether the trial court’s previous ruling was
appropriately determined after considering all relevant factors determinative of best
interests for Michael.

Additional Dissenting opinion against district court’s original ruling by appellate court.
notes/
takeaways