Title: Virginia (BY: Katharine S.)

Estopina v. O’Brian, 68 A.3d 790 (D.C. 2013) Facts Husband and wife married in 2005. In 2006 the child was born. In 2009 the couple separated. The district court awarded the wife custody of the child and allowed relocation to Virginia Beach, VA. The husband appealed because the court did not determine the best interest of the child when granting the custody. The lower court looked at the following facts. The wife was a stay at home mom with the child since the child’s birth. The husband had to travel for his work, but was still there for certain daily tasks like doctor’s appointments. After the separation the husband lost his job and the couple could not afford the home. The wife moved back to her family home in Arlington, Virginia, while the husband stayed in DC. In Virginia the wife took a job as a teacher. The wife expressed difficulty in taking the child to school in the DC area and trying to get to work in the Virginia. Also with the loss of income the couple could not afford to send the child to private school so the child had to go to another school. The child was able to be enrolled in a school in Virginia Beach that the wife’s sister owned. The child did have a close relation ship with the wife’s family and the husband did not have family in the DC area. The husband objected to the child being in Virginia. The husband wanted the child to be in a school that had a Spanish immersion program and the DC offered several schools where the child could attend. His argument was counter because the school in Virginia did have a Spanish class. Rule of Law The court defined joint physical custody involving some sort of shared custody and in this case meant that one parent is awarded custody and one parent visitation rights. Hutchins v. Compton, 917 A.2d 680 (D.C. 2007) In determining the best interest of the child the court looked to D.C. Code § 16-914(a)(3) (2001) and weighed all the facts against the factors necessary. To determine if the relocation was a factor the court relied on the previous case of Samuel v. Person 138 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 1537, 1543 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 15, 2010).