Background
Karen Gonzalez and Richard Okewole never married but had a child together (“Nate”), who lived with Mother in Phoenix for his entire eight-year life. In November 2024, while Father was living in Tennessee, he petitioned for legal decision-making and parenting time, which Mother opposed. Father then moved to Oregon for a new job and amended his petition to designate his Oregon residence as Nate’s primary residence during the school year. The superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing in May 2025 where both parties testified about Nate’s education, Father’s access to parenting time, and Mother’s capacity to manage the child’s schooling.
At the hearing, Father testified that Mother had historically prevented or conditioned his visitation with arbitrary demands, supported by text messages. He expressed concern that Nate had been pulled out of school multiple times beginning in first grade and had never completed a full year in a traditional school setting. Father testified that Nate would attend school where Father works in Oregon and that a brick-and-mortar setting would provide academic and emotional stability. Mother testified that she homeschools Nate using online curricula and a twice-weekly tutor, though she acknowledged never administering a standardized test and running multiple businesses while working as a nurse in the evenings.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s relocation order. The court found that Mother had adequate notice that relocation was at issue despite Father not explicitly using the word “relocation” in his petition. Father’s amended petition requesting Nate’s primary residence during the school year, combined with Mother’s acknowledgment of Father’s move to Oregon and her pretrial statement mentioning the relocation concern, provided sufficient notice under Arizona law.
The court held that competent evidence supported the superior court’s finding that relocation was in Nate’s best interests under A.R.S. § 25-408(I). Applying a multi-factor analysis, the court credited Father’s testimony that he would honor Mother’s parenting time after relocation, found Father’s improved stability and emphasis on brick-and-mortar education compelling, and noted that Mother had a history of thwarting Father’s parenting time through text messages and testimony. The court also found legitimate concerns about Mother’s practical capacity to homeschool given her overwhelming work schedule and the lack of direct assessment of Nate’s academic performance.
Although the court noted Mother’s demeanor during Father’s testimony, it determined that even setting aside that observation, sufficient independent evidence supported the relocation order. The court emphasized that no single factor was controlling and that all factors weighed collectively in Father’s favor.
Key Takeaways
- Relocation statutes apply when a parent seeks to change a child’s primary residence outside the state, even absent a prior written custody agreement or court order.
- Notice of relocation is satisfied when the non-relocating parent becomes aware through the petition, pretrial statements, or testimony that a change of primary residence is at issue, even if the specific word “relocation” is not used.
- Courts may assess a parent’s practical capacity to implement an education plan when evaluating the child’s best interests, including consideration of work schedules and actual versus claimed academic performance.
- A parent’s history of thwarting the other parent’s visitation rights is a significant factor supporting relocation when the relocating parent offers credible testimony about maintaining post-relocation parenting time.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Arizona’s relocation statute applies flexibly to custody disputes even when no formal custody order exists, provided that a parent seeks to change the child’s primary residence. Courts need not wait for explicit use of the term “relocation” if the parties are clearly focused on a change of residence. The opinion also demonstrates that trial courts have discretion to examine the practical realities of a parent’s claimed educational approach—such as work capacity and evidence of academic progress—rather than accepting assertions at face value.
For parents considering relocation, the case illustrates that a demonstrated history of blocking the other parent’s access to the child, combined with concrete concerns about the custodial parent’s capacity to deliver on education promises, can outweigh the child’s long-term residence with one parent. The decision also affirms that brick-and-mortar schooling with documented academic oversight may be favored over homeschooling when the homeschooling parent lacks time or proven mechanisms to ensure educational progress, balancing the presumed benefits of either arrangement against the specific circumstances of each parent.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.