Idaho

Statutory framework; factor structure: 7.

Authority

Idaho Code § 32-717(1)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

7

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

Joint custody, § 32-717B(4); reversed for habitual DV, (5)

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

"Irreconcilable differences"

Authority

Idaho Code §§ 32-603, 32-616, 32-610

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"Irreconcilable differences"

Other grounds and proof conditions

adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperance, conviction of felony, permanent insanity (7)

Separation

5 years living "separate and apart ... without cohabitation" (§ 32-610); same-roof not addressed

Timing

No merits hearing or final decree until at least 21 days after commencement and service, except the court may proceed earlier if both parties agree and both are present in person or represented by counsel at trial. If grounds are established and reconciliation is practicable and in the family’s best interests, the court may stay proceedings up to 90 days where there are minor children (§ 32-716).

Relief without dissolution

Yes, decree of legal separation, § 32-704(2)

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Court-made relocation factors. On the moving parent. No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required.

Authority

Case law (Bartosz, Danti)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

burden on the relocating parent

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

none defined by statute or rule

Effect of silence

No deemed-consent procedure identified in the custody provisions or named decisions

What the court weighs

Best interests govern, using the § 32-717 factors plus relocation factors approved in Danti (2009) that courts 'may' consider, repeated in Raber (2025) and Bickerstaff (2026): motives for relocating or opposing. The quality of each parent's relationship with the child. The child's attachment. The harm of continued parental hostility. Economic, emotional and educational benefit. The quality of the child's lifestyle if the move is allowed or denied. The effect on extended family. And whether suitable visitation can preserve the relationship with the non-custodial parent. Courts must also account for Idaho's presumption favoring frequent and continuing contact with both parents (Bartosz). Bartosz held there is no presumption against relocation. Raber I vacated and remanded a judgment adopting a two-week Idaho–Texas shared-custody schedule because the court had not made findings explaining why that custody arrangement served the child’s best interests.

Who carries the burden

The parent seeking permission to relocate must prove the move is in the child's best interests. Once proved, the parent is allowed to move (Bartosz, Bickerstaff 2026, which states that the relocating parent bears the burden of proving best interests). No shift to the objector.

Notice and safety exceptions

No general advance relocation-notice requirement was identified in § 32-717, § 32-717B or the named relocation decisions. Individual custody orders remain separate.

Which moves trigger the rule

None defined. Relocation is decided when a parent asks the court for permission to move with the child, or when a custody judgment addresses where the child will live.

Objections and the effect of silence

The cited relocation proceedings involve requests for court permission and opposition. No separate objection deadline or deemed-consent procedure was identified in the custody provisions or named decisions. Individual orders and generally applicable motion rules remain separate.

The modification threshold

Partly answered. A post-decree request to relocate is decided as a relocation question on best interests, with the burden on the moving parent, not as a change of custody (Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 64 P.3d 327 (2003)). After an actual move, a court may modify custody when the move's effects show a material, permanent and substantial change, but not simply because of the move (Ford v. Ford, 108 Idaho 443, 700 P.2d 65 (1985)). No Supreme Court case says a proposed move alone is or is not such a change.

Other qualifications

A statutory joint-custody presumption sits on top of a purely case-law relocation test, and the Idaho Supreme Court issued three decisions involving custody and relocation in 2025–2026: Raber I and Raber II, successive appeals in one case, and Bickerstaff. Military: Section 32-717(6) says that when an active Idaho National Guard member is ordered or called to duty, or a reservist is ordered to active federal service, that service is not 'a substantial or material and permanent change in circumstance' to modify by reducing the member's previously decreed custody and visitation.

Burden summary

On the moving parent

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

No statutory or rule trigger

Compare parental relocation nationally