Parenting of A.M.G.

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Arrington’s request to relocate A.M.G. to Idaho and the resulting parenting-plan modification placing A.M.G. primarily with Father if the move occurred. It held that the plan did not violate Arrington’s constitutional right to travel and that the District Court’s findings adequately supported its best-interest determination under the statutory parenting-plan factors. The court also declined to address the claimed lack of consolidation because Arrington had not preserved that issue.