The Idaho Supreme Court has vacated a magistrate court's child custody determination and visitation schedule in *Raber v. Raber*, ordering the case remanded for further proceedings in what marks the second high court intervention in this contentious custody dispute.
The court issued its opinion Jan. 15 in the case involving Elizabeth C. Raber, now known as Elizabeth P. Corey, and Michael R. Raber. Justice Brody authored the opinion vacating the judgment from the Magistrate Court of the First Judicial District in Kootenai County.
This expedited appeal stems from a child custody determination and visitation schedule that was issued on remand following the Idaho Supreme Court's previous decision in the same case, referred to as *Raber I*. In that earlier 2025 ruling, the high court had already vacated a judgment that awarded the parents joint legal and physical custody of their four-year-old child.
The original custody arrangement that was struck down in *Raber I* involved a two-week-on, two-week-off rotation between the father's home in Idaho and the mother's home in Texas. The court found issues with this arrangement significant enough to warrant vacating the lower court's judgment.
Following the Supreme Court's remand in *Raber I*, the case returned to the magistrate court level where Judge Anna Eckhart made new determinations regarding custody and visitation. However, those new rulings have now also been vacated by the Supreme Court, indicating continuing legal issues with how the lower court addressed the custody matters.
The case has involved multiple magistrate court judges, with both Judge Anna Eckhart and Judge Katherine Murdock having made rulings connected to the appeal. The Supreme Court specifically noted in its opinion that it would refer to the judges by name when necessary to avoid confusion given the multiple judicial decisions involved.
The interstate nature of this custody dispute, with one parent in Idaho and the other in Texas, appears to have created complex jurisdictional and practical considerations for the courts. Such interstate custody cases often present challenges regarding which state's laws apply, enforcement of visitation orders across state lines, and the practical difficulties of maintaining meaningful parent-child relationships over long distances.
Elizabeth Raber, who has since changed her name to Elizabeth Corey, was represented by attorneys from two law firms: Amendola Doty & Brumley of Coeur d'Alene and Bevis, Thiry, Henson & Katz of Boise. Philip M. Bevis argued the case before the Supreme Court on her behalf.
Michael Raber was represented by Palmer/George, PLLC of Coeur d'Alene and Cosho Humphrey, LLP of Boise. Attorney Mackenzie E. Whatcott presented oral arguments for the respondent.
The expedited nature of this appeal suggests the urgency the court placed on resolving the custody arrangement for the child involved. Expedited appeals are typically reserved for cases involving time-sensitive matters where delay could cause irreparable harm, particularly in family law cases involving minor children.
The fact that this case has now resulted in two Supreme Court interventions indicates substantial legal issues with how the custody determination has been handled at the trial court level. The repeated vacating of lower court judgments suggests either procedural errors, misapplication of legal standards, or inadequate factual findings in the custody proceedings.
Family law practitioners will likely watch closely to see what specific guidance the Supreme Court provides on remand, as the opinion may clarify important principles regarding interstate custody disputes, the application of Idaho's custody statutes, or procedural requirements for custody determinations.
The case underscores the complexities that can arise in modern family law when parents live in different states and courts must balance the best interests of the child with practical considerations of geography and each parent's rights to maintain a meaningful relationship with their child.
With the case now remanded for the second time, the magistrate court will need to address whatever deficiencies the Supreme Court identified in its latest opinion. The lower court will be required to conduct new proceedings consistent with the high court's guidance to ensure any future custody determination can withstand appellate review.
This ongoing litigation highlights the challenging nature of interstate custody cases and the careful legal analysis required when courts must craft arrangements that serve a child's best interests while respecting both parents' rights across state boundaries.