October 2005

Relocation of Custodial Parent: Standards and Burden of Proof
State by State Survey

Laura W. Morgan

1. Alabama:

There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child. The party seeking a change of principal residence of a child shall have the initial burden of proof on the issue. If that burden of proof is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating party. Ala. Code 1975 § 30-3-169.4

See Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863 (Ala.1984); Clements v. Clements, 2005 WL 327027 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).

2. Alaska:

A court making a custody determination in cases where one parent chooses to move away from Alaska must do so by determining what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child under the criteria stated in AS 25.24.150(c) [the general custody statute], including determining whether there are legitimate reasons for the move. A proposed move is legitimate if it "was not primarily motivated by a desire to make visitation ... more difficult." House v. House, 779 P.2d 1204 (Alaska 1989); see also McQuade v. McQuade, 901 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1995).

3. Arizona:

The court shall determine whether to allow the parent to relocate the child in accordance with the child's best interests. The burden of proving what is in the child's best interests is on the parent who is seeking to relocate the child. To the extent practicable the court shall also make appropriate arrangements to ensure the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the child and both parents. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-408(G).

See Bloss v. Bloss, 147 Ariz. 524, 711 P.2d 663 (App. Ct. Div. 2 1985).

4. Arkansas:

There is a presumption in favor of relocation for custodial parents with primary custody of children, with the burden being with the noncustodial parent to rebut the relocation presumption, and thus the custodial parent no longer has the responsibility to prove a real advantage to herself or himself and to the children in relocating. Blivin v. Weber, 354 Ark. 483, 126 S.W.3d 351 (2003).

5. California:

The noncustodial parent bears the initial burden of showing that the proposed relocation of the children's residence would cause detriment to the children, requiring a reevaluation of the children's custody. The likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children and, when considered in light of all of the relevant factors, may be sufficient to justify a change in custody. If the noncustodial parent makes such an initial showing of detriment, the court must perform the delicate and difficult task of determining whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of La Musga, 32 Cal.4th 1072, 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 356, 88 P.3d 81 (2004).

6. Colorado:

In those cases in which a party with whom the child resides a majority of the time is seeking to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party, the court, in determining whether the modification of parenting time is in the best interests of the child, shall take into account all relevant factors, including those enumerated in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section. The party who is intending to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party shall provide the other party with written notice as soon as practicable of his or her intent to relocate, the location where the party intends to reside, the reason for the relocation, and a proposed revised parenting time plan. A court hearing on any modification of parenting time due to an intent to relocate shall be given a priority on the court's docket. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129(1)(a)(II).

See In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005).

7. Connecticut:

Custodial parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose and the proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose; once the custodial parent has made such a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the noncustodial parent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child. Ireland v. Ireland, 246 Conn. 413, 717 A.2d 676 (1998).

8. Delaware:

Adopting Model Relocation Act, court must weigh various factors to determine if relocation is in the best interests of the child. Karen J.M. v. James W., 792 A.2d 1036 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2002).

9. D.C.:

10. Florida:

No presumption shall arise in favor of or against a request to relocate when a primary residential parent seeks to move the child and the move will materially affect the current schedule of contact and access with the secondary residential parent. In making a determination as to whether the primary residential parent may relocate with a child, the court must consider the following factors: 1. Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the residential parent and the child; 2. The extent to which visitation rights have been allowed and exercised; Whether the primary residential parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements; 4. Whether the substitute visitation will be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the child and the secondary residential parent; 5. Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both parties; 6. Whether the move is in the best interests of the child. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.13(2)(d)(3).

See Buonavolonta v. Buonavolonta, 846 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

11. Georgia:

Analysis must be based on the best interests of the child. This analysis forbids the presumption that a relocating custodial parent will always lose custody and, conversely, forbids any presumption in favor of relocation. Bodne v. Bodne, 277 Ga. 445, 588 S.E.2d 728 (2003).

12. Hawaii:

13. Idaho:

In Idaho, the best interests of the children is always the paramount concern. Therefore, in any judicial determination regarding the custody of children, including where they reside, the best interests of the child should be the standard and primary consideration. In addition, Idaho favors the active participation of both parents in raising children after divorce, which policy is reflected in I.C. § 32-717B supporting joint custody. For these reasons, in Idaho, the moving parent has the burden of proving relocation would be in the best interests of the child before moving in violation of a previous custody arrangement. Roberts v. Roberts, 138 Idaho 401, 64 P.3d 327 (2003).

14. Illinois:

Leave to Remove Children. (a) The court may grant leave, before or after judgment, to any party having custody of any minor child or children to remove such child or children from Illinois whenever such approval is in the best interests of such child or children. The burden of proving that such removal is in the best interests of such child or children is on the party seeking the removal. When such removal is permitted, the court may require the party removing such child or children from Illinois to give reasonable security guaranteeing the return of such children.
(b) Before a minor child is temporarily removed from Illinois, the parent responsible for the removal shall inform the other parent, or the other parent's attorney, of the address and telephone number where the child may be reached during the period of temporary removal, and the date on which the child shall return to Illinois.

The State of Illinois retains jurisdiction when the minor child is absent from the State pursuant to this subsection. 750 ILCS 5/609.

See In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill.2d 316, 116 Ill.Dec. 220, 518 N.E.2d 1041 (1988); In re Marriage of Smith, 172 Ill.2d 312, 321, 216 Ill.Dec. 652, 665 N.E.2d 1209 (1996).

15. Indiana:

(a) If an individual who has been awarded custody of a child under this chapter intends to move to a residence:
(1) other than a residence specified in the custody order; and

(2) that is outside Indiana or at least one hundred (100) miles from the individual's county of residence;

the individual must file a notice of the intent to move with the clerk of the court that issued the custody order and send a copy of the notice to a parent who was not awarded custody and who has been granted parenting time rights under IC 31-17-4 (or IC 31-1-11.5-24 before its repeal).

(b) Upon request of either party, the court shall set the matter for a hearing for the purposes of reviewing and modifying, if appropriate, the custody, parenting time, and support orders. The court shall take into account the following in determining whether to modify the custody, parenting time, and support orders:

(1) The distance involved in the proposed change of residence.

(2) The hardship and expense involved for noncustodial parents to exercise parenting time rights.
(c) Except in cases of extreme hardship, the court may not award attorney's fees. Ind. Code § 31-17-2-23.

Whether move out of state by parent with joint legal custody and primary physical custody would be sufficient to satisfy standard of proof required for modification of child custody orders depends upon facts. Although move out of state by parent with joint legal custody and primary physical custody is not per se substantial change of circumstances such as to make that parent's continuing custody unreasonable, this does not mean that circumstances inherent in such move are always insufficient as a matter of law to warrant modifying child custody. Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. 1992).

16. Iowa:

If a parent awarded joint legal custody and physical care or sole legal custody is relocating the residence of the minor child to a location which is one hundred fifty miles or more from the residence of the minor child at the time that custody was awarded, the court may consider the relocation a substantial change in circumstances. If the court determines that the relocation is a substantial change in circumstances, the court shall modify the custody order to, at a minimum, preserve, as nearly as possible, the existing relationship between the minor child and the nonrelocating parent. If modified, the order may include a provision for extended visitation during summer vacations and school breaks and scheduled telephone contact between the nonrelocating parent and the minor child. Iowa Code 598.21(8A).

See In re Marriage of Thielges, 623 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).

17. Kansas:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), a parent entitled to legal custody or residency of or parenting time with a child pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1610 and amendments thereto shall give written notice to the other parent not less than 30 days prior to: (1) Changing the residence of the child; or (2) removing the child from this state for a period of time exceeding 90 days. Such notice shall be sent by restricted mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the other parent.

(b) Failure to give notice as required by subsection (a) is an indirect civil contempt punishable as provided by law. In addition, the court may assess, against the parent required to give notice, reasonable attorney fees and any other expenses incurred by the other parent by reason of the failure to give notice.

(c) A change of the residence or the removal of a child as described in subsection (a) may be considered a material change of circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of legal custody, residency, child support or parenting time. In determining any motion seeking a modification of a prior order based on change of residence or removal as described in (a), the court shall consider all factors the court deems appropriate including, but not limited to: (1) The effect of the move on the best interests of the child; (2) the effect of the move on any party having rights granted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1610, and amendments thereto; and (3) the increased cost the move will impose on any party seeking to exercise rights granted under K.S.A. 60-1610, and amendments thereto.

(d) A parent entitled to the legal custody or residency of a child pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1610 and amendments thereto shall not be required to give the notice required by this section to the other parent when the other parent has been convicted of any crime specified in article 34, 35 or 36 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated in which the child is the victim of such crime.

Kan. Stat. § 60-1620.

See In re Marriage of Whipp, 265 Kan. 500, 962 P.2d 1058 (1998).

18. Kentucky:

A non-primary residential custodian parent who objects to the primary residential custodian's relocation with the children can only prevent the relocation by being named the sole or primary residential custodian, and to accomplish this re-designation would require a modification of the prior custody award; he or she must therefore show that the child's present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages.

Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2003).

19. Louisiana:

A. In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court shall consider the following factors:

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life.

(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.

(3) The feasibility of preserving a good relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.

(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the parent seeking the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating party.

(6) Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the custodial parent seeking the relocation and the child, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.

(7) The reasons of each parent for seeking or opposing the relocation.

(8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent and whether or not the proposed relocation is necessary to improve the circumstances of the parent seeking relocation of the child.

(9) The extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial obligations to the parent seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and community property obligations.

(10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting parent.

(11) Any history of substance abuse or violence by either parent, including a consideration of the severity of such conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.

(12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

B. The court may not consider whether or not the person seeking relocation of the child will relocate without the child if relocation is denied or whether or not the person opposing relocation will also relocate if relocation is allowed.

La. Rev. Stat. 9:355.12.

The relocating parent has the burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child. In determining the child's best interest, the court shall consider the benefits which the child will derive either directly or indirectly from an enhancement in the relocating parent's general quality of life.

La. Rev. Stat. 9:355.13.

20. Maine:

2. Change in circumstances. In reviewing a motion for modification or termination filed under chapter 59 or section 1653 or 1655, the following constitute a substantial change in circumstances:

A. The relocation, or intended relocation, of a child resident in this state to another state by a parent, when the other parent is a resident of this State and there exists an award of shared or allocated parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child;

A-1. The relocation, or intended relocation, of a child that will disrupt the parent-child contact between the child and the parent who is not relocating, if there exists an award of shared or allocated parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child. Relocating the child more than 60 miles from the residence of the parent who is relocating or more than 60 miles from the residence of the parent who is not relocating is presumed to disrupt the parent-child contact between the child and the parent who is not relocating;

A-2. The receipt of notice of the intended relocation of the child as required under section 1653, subsection 14; or . . . [.] Me. Rev. Stat. § 1657.

A relocation is a substantial change in circumstances. With such a change established as a matter of law, the issue for the court is what modification of the preexisting custody order is in the child’s best interest. Fraser v. Boyer, 722 A.2d 354 (Me. 1998).

21. Maryland:

Changes brought about by relocation of parent may, in given case, be sufficient to justify change in custody; result depends upon circumstances of each case. Domingues v. Johnson, 23 Md. 486, 593 A.2d 1133 (1991).

22. Massachusetts:

A minor child of divorced parents who is a native of or has resided five years within this commonwealth and over whose custody and maintenance a probate court has jurisdiction shall not, if of suitable age to signify his consent, be removed out of this commonwealth without such consent, or, if under that age, without the consent of both parents, unless the court upon cause shown otherwise orders. The court, upon application of any person in behalf of such child, may require security and issue writs and processes to effect the purposes of this and the two preceding sections. Mass. Gen. L. c. 208, § 30.

Although best interests of children always remain paramount concern on request for removal of children from Commonwealth, because best interests of children are so interwoven with well-being of custodial parent, determination of children's best interest requires that custodial parent be taken into account. If custodial parent establishes good, sincere reason for wanting to remove to another jurisdiction, none of the relevant factors becomes controlling in deciding best interests of child, but rather they must be considered collectively. Rosenthal v. Maney, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 257, 745 N.E.2d 350 (2001).

23. Michigan:

Sec. 11. (1) A child whose parental custody is governed by court order has, for the purposes of this section, a legal residence with each parent. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued.

(2) A parent's change of a child's legal residence is not restricted by subsection (1) if the other parent consents to, or if the court, after complying with subsection (4), permits, the residence change. This section does not apply if the order governing the child's custody grants sole legal custody to 1 of the child's parents.

(3) This section does not apply if, at the time of the commencement of the action in which the custody order is issued, the child's 2 residences were more than 100 miles apart. This section does not apply if the legal residence change results in the child's 2 legal residences being closer to each other than before the change.

(4) Before permitting a legal residence change otherwise restricted by subsection (1), the court shall consider each of the following factors, with the child as the primary focus in the court's deliberations:

(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.

(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent's plan to change the child's legal residence is inspired by that parent's desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.

(c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.

(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.

(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

(5) Each order determining or modifying custody or parenting time of a child shall include a provision stating the parent's agreement as to how a change in either of the child's legal residences will be handled. If such a provision is included in the order and a child's legal residence change is done in compliance with that provision, this section does not apply. If the parents do not agree on such a provision, the court shall include in the order the following provision: "A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with section 11 of the "Child Custody Act of 1970", 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.31.".

(6) If this section applies to a change of a child's legal residence and the parent seeking to change that legal residence needs to seek a safe location from the threat of domestic violence, the parent may move to such a location with the child until the court makes a determination under this section. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.31.

See Grew v. Knox, 265 Mich. App. 333, 694 N.W.2d 772 (2005).

24. Minnesota:

When a custodial parent petitions the court for permission to remove the residence of a child to another state, the court presumes that removal with the parent will be in the best interests of the child and will grant permission to remove without an evidentiary hearing unless the party opposing the motion for removal makes a prima facie showing against removal. Once granted a hearing, the noncustodial parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that removal is not in the best interests of the child. Auge v. Auge, 334 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Minn.1983); see also Gordon v. Gordon, 339 N.W.2d 269, 271 (Minn.1983) (extending the Auge presumption to cases of joint custody).

25. Mississippi:

Move to another state which effectively curtails non-custodial parent's visitation rights is not sufficient to warrant change in custody. Court must find an adverse effect on the child. Spain v. Holland, 483 So.2d 318, 321 (Miss. 1986).

26. Missouri:

1. For purposes of this section and section 452.375, "relocate" or "relocation" means a change in the principal residence of a child for a period of ninety days or more, but does not include a temporary absence from the principal residence.

2. Notice of a proposed relocation of the residence of the child, or any party entitled to custody or visitation of the child, shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to any party with custody or visitation rights. Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, written notice shall be provided at least sixty days in advance of the proposed relocation. The notice of the proposed relocation shall include the following information:

(1) The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city;

(2) The home telephone number of the new residence, if known;

(3) The date of the intended move or proposed relocation;

(4) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of a child, if applicable; and

(5) A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child, if applicable.

3. A party required to give notice of a proposed relocation pursuant to subsection 2 of this section has a continuing duty to provide a change in or addition to the information required by this section as soon as such information becomes known.

4. In exceptional circumstances where the court makes a finding that the health or safety of any adult or child would be unreasonably placed at risk by the disclosure of the required identifying information concerning a proposed relocation of the child, the court may order that:

(1) The specific residence address and telephone number of the child, parent or person, and other identifying information shall not be disclosed in the pleadings, notice, other documents filed in the proceeding or the final order except for an in camera disclosure;

(2) The notice requirements provided by this section shall be waived to the extent necessary to protect the health or safety of a child or any adult; or

(3) Any other remedial action the court considers necessary to facilitate the legitimate needs of the parties and the best interest of the child.

5. The court shall consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation of a child as:

(1) A factor in determining whether custody and visitation should be modified;

(2) A basis for ordering the return of the child if the relocation occurs without notice; and

(3) Sufficient cause to order the party seeking to relocate the child to pay reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred by the party objecting to the relocation.

6. If the parties agree to a revised schedule of custody and visitation for the child, which includes a parenting plan, they may submit the terms of such agreement to the court with a written affidavit signed by all parties with custody or visitation assenting to the terms of the agreement, and the court may order the revised parenting plan and applicable visitation schedule without a hearing.

7. The residence of the child may be relocated sixty days after providing notice, as required by this section, unless a parent files a motion seeking an order to prevent the relocation within thirty days after receipt of such notice. Such motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the specific factual basis supporting a prohibition of the relocation. The person seeking relocation shall file a response to the motion within fourteen days, unless extended by the court for good cause, and include a counter-affidavit setting forth the facts in support of the relocation as well as a proposed revised parenting plan for the child.

8. If relocation of the child is proposed, a third party entitled by court order to legal custody of or visitation with a child and who is not a parent may file a cause of action to obtain a revised schedule of legal custody or visitation, but shall not prevent a relocation.

9. The party seeking to relocate shall have the burden of proving that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child.

10. If relocation is permitted:

(1) The court shall order contact with the nonrelocating party including custody or visitation and telephone access sufficient to assure that the child has frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the nonrelocating party unless the child's best interest warrants otherwise; and

(2) The court shall specify how the transportation costs will be allocated between the parties and adjust the child support, as appropriate, considering the costs of transportation.

11. After August 28, 1998, every court order establishing or modifying custody or visitation shall include the following language: "Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, you, as a party to this action, are ordered to notify, in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and at least sixty days prior to the proposed relocation, each party to this action of any proposed relocation of the principal residence of the child, including the following information:

(1) The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city;

(2) The home telephone number of the new residence, if known;

(3) The date of the intended move or proposed relocation;

(4) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of the child; and

(5) A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child.

Your obligation to provide this information to each party continues as long as you or any other party by virtue of this order is entitled to custody of a child covered by this order. Your failure to obey the order of this court regarding the proposed relocation may result in further litigation to enforce such order, including contempt of court. In addition, your failure to notify a party of a relocation of the child may be considered in a proceeding to modify custody or visitation with the child. Reasonable costs and attorney fees may be assessed against you if you fail to give the required notice."

12. Violation of the provisions of this section or a court order under this section may be deemed a change of circumstance under section 452.410, allowing the court to modify the prior custody decree. In addition, the court may utilize any and all powers relating to contempt conferred on it by law or rule of the Missouri supreme court.

13. Any party who objects in good faith to the relocation of a child's principal residence shall not be ordered to pay the costs and attorney's fees of the party seeking to relocate. Mo. Stat. Ann. § 452.377.

See Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. 2001) (on a motion to relocate children, a court is required to determine that a proposed relocation: (1) is in the best interests of the child, (2) is made in good faith, and (3) if ordered, complies with statutory requirements).

27. Montana:

(1) A parent who intends to change residence shall, unless precluded under 40- 4-234, provide written notice to the other parent.

(2) If a parent's change in residence will significantly affect the child's contact with the other parent, notice must be served personally or given by certified mail not less than 30 days before the proposed change in residence and must include a proposed revised residential schedule. Proof of service must be filed with the court that adopted the parenting plan. Failure of the parent who receives notice to respond to the written notice or to seek amendment of the residential schedule pursuant to 40-4-219 within the 30-day period constitutes acceptance of the proposed revised residential schedule. Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-217.

See In re Marriage of Cole, 224 Mont. 207, 729 P.2d 1276 (1986).

28. Nebraska:

In order to prevail on a motion to remove a minor child to another jurisdiction, the custodial parent must first satisfy the court that he or she has a legitimate reason for leaving the state. After clearing that threshold, the custodial parent must next demonstrate that it is in the child's best interests to continue living with him or her. Under Nebraska law, the burden has been placed on the custodial parent to satisfy this test. Tremain v. Tremain, 264 Neb. 328, 646 N.W.2d 661 (2002).

29. Nevada

If custody has been established and the custodial parent intends to move his residence to a place outside of this state and to take the child with him, he must, as soon as possible and before the planned move, attempt to obtain the written consent of the noncustodial parent to move the child from this state. If the noncustodial parent refuses to give that consent, the custodial parent shall, before he leaves this state with the child, petition the court for permission to move the child. The failure of a parent to comply with the provisions of this section may be considered as a factor if a change of custody is requested by the noncustodial parent.

See Flynn v. Flynn, 92 P.3d 1224 (Nev. 2004).

30. New Hampshire

I. This section shall apply to relocation of the principal residence of a child if the existing custody order or other enforceable agreement between the parties does not expressly govern the relocation issue. This section shall not apply if the relocation results in the child moving closer to the non-custodial parent or to any location within the child's current school district.

II. The custodial parent, prior to relocating, shall provide reasonable notice to the non-custodial parent. For purposes of this section, 60 days notice shall be presumed to be reasonable unless other factors are found to be present.

III. At the request of either the custodial or non-custodial parent, the court shall hold a hearing on the relocation issue.

IV. The custodial parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(a) The relocation is for a legitimate purpose; and

(b) The proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose.

V. If the burden of proof established in paragraph IV is met, the burden shifts to the non-custodial parent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

VI. If the court has issued a temporary order authorizing temporary relocation, the court shall not give undue weight to that temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final decision.

VII. The court, in reaching its final decision, shall not consider whether the custodial parent seeking to relocate has declared that he or she will not relocate if relocation of the child is denied.

N.H. Rev. Stat. § 458:23-a.

31. New Jersey

When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order. The court, upon application of any person in behalf of such minors, may require such security and issue such writs and processes as shall be deemed proper to effect the purposes of this section. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-2.

See Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 770 A.2d 214 (2001).

32. New Mexico

Sole custodian seeking to relocate with child is entitled to presumption that move is in best interest of child, and burden is on noncustodial parent to show that move is against those interests or motivated by bad faith on part of custodial parent. Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 113 N.M. 57, 823 P.2d 299 (1991).

33. New York

When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the child. The factors to be considered include: each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements. Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 (1996). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the child's best interest. Matter of Groover v. Potter, 17 A.D.3d 718, 792 N.Y.S.2d 693 (3 Dep’t 2005).

34. North Carolina

Where a parent changes his residence, the effect on the welfare of the child must be shown in order for the court to modify a custody decree based on change of circumstance. In evaluating the best interests of a child in determining custody in the case of a proposed relocation of one parent, the trial court may appropriately consider several factors including: the advantages of the relocation in terms of its capacity to improve the life of the child; the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move; the likelihood that the custodial parent will comply with visitation orders when he or she is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of North Carolina; the integrity of the noncustodial parent in resisting the relocation; and the likelihood that a realistic visitation schedule can be arranged which will preserve and foster the parental relationship with the noncustodial parent. Carlton v. Carlton, 145 N.C. App. 252, 549 S.E.2d 916, reversed other grounds 354 N.C. 561, 557 S.E.2d 529, certiorari denied 536 U.S. 944 (2001).

35. North Dakota

A parent entitled to the custody of a child may not change the residence of the child to another state except upon order of the court or with the consent of the noncustodial parent, if the noncustodial parent has been given visitation rights by the decree. A court order is not required if the noncustodial parent:

1. Has not exercised visitation rights for a period of one year; or

2. Has moved to another state and is more than fifty miles [80.47 kilometers] from the residence of the custodial parent.

See Stout v. Stout, 560 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1997).

36. Ohio

(G)(1) If the residential parent intends to move to a residence other than the residence specified in the parenting time order or decree of the court, the parent shall file a notice of intent to relocate with the court that issued the order or decree. Except as provided in divisions (G)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, the court shall send a copy of the notice to the parent who is not the residential parent. Upon receipt of the notice, the court, on its own motion or the motion of the parent who is not the residential parent, may schedule a hearing with notice to both parents to determine whether it is in the best interest of the child to revise the parenting time schedule for the child.

(2) When a court grants parenting time rights to a parent who is not the residential parent, the court shall determine whether that parent has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense, or has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive act that is the basis of an adjudication that a child is an abused child. If the court determines that that parent has not been so convicted and has not been determined to be the perpetrator of an abusive act that is the basis of a child abuse adjudication, the court shall issue an order stating that a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed with the court pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section will be sent to the parent who is given the parenting time rights in accordance with division (G)(1) of this section.

If the court determines that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense, or has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive act that is the basis of an adjudication that a child is an abused child, it shall issue an order stating that that parent will not be given a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed with the court pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of the children to give that parent a copy of the notice of relocation, issues an order stating that that parent will be given a copy of any notice of relocation filed pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, and issues specific written findings of fact in support of its determination.

(3) If a court, prior to April 11, 1991, issued an order granting parenting time rights to a parent who is not the residential parent and did not require the residential parent in that order to give the parent who is granted the parenting time rights notice of any change of address and if the residential parent files a notice of relocation pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, the court shall determine if the parent who is granted the parenting time rights has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense, or has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive act that is the basis of an adjudication that a child is an abused child. If the court determines that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights has not been so convicted and has not been determined to be the perpetrator of an abusive act that is the basis of a child abuse adjudication, the court shall issue an order stating that a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed with the court pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section will be sent to the parent who is granted parenting time rights in accordance with division (G)(1) of this section.

If the court determines that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense, or has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive act that is the basis of an adjudication that a child is an abused child, it shall issue an order stating that that parent will not be given a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed with the court pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of the children to give that parent a copy of the notice of relocation, issues an order stating that that parent will be given a copy of any notice of relocation filed pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, and issues specific written findings of fact in support of its determination.

(4) If a parent who is granted parenting time rights pursuant to this section or any other section of the Revised Code is authorized by an order issued pursuant to this section or any other court order to receive a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section or pursuant to court order, if the residential parent intends to move to a residence other than the residence address specified in the parenting time order, and if the residential parent does not want the parent who is granted the parenting time rights to receive a copy of the relocation notice because the parent with parenting time rights has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any other offense involving a victim who at the time of the commission of the offense was a member of the family or household that is the subject of the proceeding and caused physical harm to the victim in the commission of the offense, or has been determined to be the perpetrator of the abusive act that is the basis of an adjudication that a child is an abused child, the residential parent may file a motion with the court requesting that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights not receive a copy of any notice of relocation. Upon the filing of the motion, the court shall schedule a hearing on the motion and give both parents notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing. If the court determines that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights has been so convicted or has been determined to be the perpetrator of an abusive act that is the basis of a child abuse adjudication, the court shall issue an order stating that the parent who is granted the parenting time rights will not be given a copy of any notice of relocation that is filed with the court pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section or that the residential parent is no longer required to give that parent a copy of any notice of relocation unless the court determines that it is in the best interest of the children to give that parent a copy of the notice of relocation, issues an order stating that that parent will be given a copy of any notice of relocation filed pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, and issues specific written findings of fact in support of its determination. If it does not so find, it shall dismiss the motion. Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.051.

See Patton v. Patton, 141 Ohio App.3d 691, 753 N.E.2d 225 (3 Dist. 2001); Rohrbaugh v. Rohrbaugh, 136 Ohio App.3d 599, 737 N.E.2d 551 (7 Dist. 2000).

37. Oklahoma

A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change his residence, subject to the power of the district court to restrain a removal which would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 19.

See Casey v. Casey, 58 P.3d 763 (Okla. 2002).

38. Oregon

The inquiry of the court focuses on the best interest of the child. If maintaining a close geographic relationship with both parents were controlling, no primary parent would be allowed to move away over the objection of the other parent without losing custody of the child. Matter of Marriage of Duckett, 137 Or. App. 446, 905 P.2d 1170 (1995).

39. Pennsylvania

First the court must consider the prospective benefits of the move, considering non-economic as well as economic factors, to determine if the move is likely to improve substantially the quality of life for the custodial parent and the child. The custodial parent bears the burden of proof with regard to this first Second, the court must consider the motives of both parents. The relevant standard for this prong with regard to the custodial parent is that the move must not be motivated by a desire to thwart visitation by and a relationship with the non-custodial parent. One aspect to this determination is whether the custodial parent will cooperate with visitation arrangements with the non-custodial parent. Third, the court must consider the availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements between the child and the non-custodial parent. Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa. Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990).

40. Rhode Island

Parties either seeking or opposing the relocation of their minor children should present relevant evidence concerning the following factors so that the court may make appropriate findings:

(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.

(2) The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.

(3) The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development. Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.

(4) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

(5) The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations.

(6) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation.

(7) In cases of international relocation, the question of whether the country to which the child is to be relocated is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be an important consideration.

(8) To the extent that they may be relevant to a relocation inquiry, the factors set forth in Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909, 913-14 (R.I.1990) are considered. Dupre v. Dupre, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004).

41. South Carolina

Other states have provided criteria to guide a court's decision. We do not endorse or specifically approve any of these factors for consideration, but merely provide the following [cases and statutes from other states] for consideration in determining whether a child's best interests are served.. Latimer v. Farmer, 360 S.C. 375, 602 S.E.2d 32 (2004).

42. South Dakota

Trial court shall consider the best interests of the child when considering a petition for change of custody based on the custodial parent’s relocation. Berens v. Berens, 689 N.W.2d 207 (S.D. 2004); Fossum v. Fossum, 545 N.W.2d 828 (S.D. 1996).

43. Tennessee

(a) If a parent who is spending intervals of time with a child desires to relocate outside the state or more than one hundred (100) miles from the other parent within the state, the relocating parent shall send a notice to the other parent at the other parent's last known address by registered or certified mail. Unless excused by the court for exigent circumstances, the notice shall be mailed not later than sixty (60) days prior to the move. The notice shall contain the following:

(1) Statement of intent to move;

(2) Location of proposed new residence;

(3) Reasons for proposed relocation; and

(4) Statement that the other parent may file a petition in opposition to the move within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice.

(b) Unless the parents can agree on a new visitation schedule, the relocating parent shall file a petition seeking to alter visitation. The court shall consider all relevant factors, including those factors enumerated within subsection (d). The court shall also consider the availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent. The court shall assess the costs of transporting the child for visitation and determine whether a deviation from the child support guidelines should be considered in light of all factors including, but not limited to, additional costs incurred for transporting the child for visitation.

(c) If the parents are actually spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child and the relocating parent seeks to move with the child, the other parent may, within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice, file a petition in opposition to removal of the child. No presumption in favor of or against the request to relocate with the child shall arise. The court shall determine whether or not to permit relocation of the child based upon the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors including the following where applicable:

(1) The extent to which visitation rights have been allowed and exercised;

(2) Whether the primary residential parent, once out of the jurisdiction, is likely to comply with any new visitation arrangement;

(3) The love, affection and emotional ties existing between the parents and child;

(4) The disposition of the parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education and other necessary care and the degree to which a parent has been the primary caregiver;

(5) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment;

(6) The stability of the family unit of the parents;

(7) The mental and physical health of the parents;

(8) The home, school and community record of the child;

(9) The reasonable preference of the child if twelve (12) years of age or older. The court may hear the preference of a younger child upon request. The preferences of older children should normally be given greater weight than those of younger children;

(10) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent or to any other person; and

(11) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and such person's interactions with the child.

(d) If the parents are not actually spending substantially equal intervals of time with the child and the parent spending the greater amount of time with the child proposes to relocate with the child, the other parent may, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, file a petition in opposition to removal of the child. The other parent may not attempt to relocate with the child unless expressly authorized to do so by the court pursuant to a change of custody or primary custodial responsibility. The parent spending the greater amount of time with the child shall be permitted to relocate with the child unless the court finds:

(1) The relocation does not have a reasonable purpose;

(2) The relocation would pose a threat of specific and serious harm to the child which outweighs the threat of harm to the child of a change of custody; or

(3) The parent's motive for relocating with the child is vindictive in that it is intended to defeat or deter visitation rights of the non-custodial parent or the parent spending less time with the child.

Specific and serious harm to the child includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) If a parent wishes to take a child with a serious medical problem to an area where no adequate treatment is readily available;

(2) If a parent wishes to take a child with specific educational requirements to an area with no acceptable education facilities;

(3) If a parent wishes to relocate and take up residence with a person with a history of child or domestic abuse or who is currently abusing alcohol or other drugs;

(4) If the child relies on the parent not relocating who provides emotional support, nurturing and development such that removal would result in severe emotional detriment to the child;

(5) If the custodial parent is emotionally disturbed or dependent such that the custodial parent is not capable of adequately parenting the child in the absence of support systems currently in place in this state, and such support system is not available at the proposed relocation site; or

(6) If the proposed relocation is to a foreign country whose public policy does not normally enforce the visitation rights of non-custodial parents, which does not have an adequately functioning legal system or which otherwise presents a substantial risk of specific and serious harm to the child.

(e) If the court finds one (1) or more of the grounds designated in subsection (d), the court shall determine whether or not to permit relocation of the child based on the best interest of the child. If the court finds it is not in the best interests of the child to relocate as defined herein, but the parent with whom the child resides the majority of the time elects to relocate, the court shall make a custody determination and shall consider all relevant factors including the following where applicable:

(1) The extent to which visitation rights have been allowed and exercised;

(2) Whether the primary residential parent, once out of the jurisdiction, is likely to comply with any new visitation arrangement;

(3) The love, affection and emotional ties existing between the parents and child;

(4) The disposition of the parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education and other necessary care and the degree to which a parent has been the primary caregiver;

(5) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment;

(6) The stability of the family unit of the parents;

(7) The mental and physical health of the parents;

(8) The home, school and community record of the child;

(9) The reasonable preference of the child if twelve (12) years of age or older. The court may hear the preference of a younger child upon request. The preferences of older children should normally be given greater weight than those of younger children;

(10) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent or to any other person; and

(11) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and such person's interactions with the child.

The court shall consider the availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent. The court shall assess the costs of transporting the child for visitation, and determine whether a deviation from the child support guidelines should be considered in light of all factors including, but not limited to, additional costs incurred for transporting the child for visitation.

(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit either parent from petitioning the court at any time to address issues, (such as, but not limited to visitation), other than a change of custody related to the move. In the event no petition in opposition to a proposed relocation is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice, the parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so.

(g) It is the legislative intent that the gender of the parent who seeks to relocate for the reason of career, educational, professional, or job opportunities, or otherwise, shall not be a factor in favor or against the relocation of such parent with the child.

See Wilson v. Wilson, 58 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

44. Texas

If the custodial parent moves a significant distance, a finding of changed circumstances may be appropriate. Such a decision is necessarily fact intensive but we can glean from the case law certain factors which the court should consider: the distance involved; the quality of the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child; the nature and quantity of the child's contacts with the non-custodial parent, both de jure and de facto; whether the relocation would deprive the non-custodial parent of regular and meaningful access to the children; the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's contact with the non-custodial parent; the motive for the move; the motive for opposing the move; the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements; and the proximity, availability, and safety of travel arrangements.

In determining the best interest of the children in the relocation context, the court should consider the following factors: reasons for and against the move; education, health, and leisure opportunities; accommodation of special needs or talents of the children; effect on extended family relationships; effect on visitation and communication with the noncustodial parent; the noncustodial parent's ability to relocate; parent's good faith in requesting the move; continuation of a meaningful relationship with the noncustodial parent; economic, emotional, and education enhancement for the children and the custodial parent; effect on extended family relationships; employment and education opportunities of the parents; the ages of the children; community ties; health and educational needs of the children. Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 14-16 (Tex. 2002).

45. Utah

Change of custody on relocation of custodial parent shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child.

See Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999).

46. Vermont

Adopting § 2.17(1) of the ALI Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution. Under that section, relocation is a substantial change of circumstances justifying a reexamination of parental rights and responsibilities only when the relocation significantly impairs either parent's ability to exercise responsibilities the parent has been exercising or attempting to exercise under the parenting plan. Hawkes v. Spence, 878 A.2d 273 (Vt. 2005).

47. Virginia

A party seeking relocation must show that a change in circumstances has occurred since the last custody award and that relocation would be in the best interests of the child. The party requesting relocation bears the burden of proof on both issues. Parish v. Spaulding, 26 Va. App. 566, 496 S.E.2d 91 (1998).

48. Washington

The person proposing to relocate with the child shall provide his or her reasons for the intended relocation. There is a rebuttable presumption that the intended relocation of the child will be permitted. A person entitled to object to the intended relocation of the child may rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person, based upon the following factors. The factors listed in this section are not weighted. No inference is to be drawn from the order in which the following factors are listed:

(1) The relative strength, nature, quality, extent of involvement, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life;

(2) Prior agreements of the parties;

(3) Whether disrupting the contact between the child and the person with whom the child resides a majority of the time would be more detrimental to the child than disrupting contact between the child and the person objecting to the relocation;

(4) Whether either parent or a person entitled to residential time with the child is subject to limitations under RCW 26.09.191;

(5) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation and the good faith of each of the parties in requesting or opposing the relocation;

(6) The age, developmental stage, and needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation or its prevention will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child;

(7) The quality of life, resources, and opportunities available to the child and to the relocating party in the current and proposed geographic locations;

(8) The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent;

(9) The alternatives to relocation and whether it is feasible and desirable for the other party to relocate also;

(10) The financial impact and logistics of the relocation or its prevention; and

(11) For a temporary order, the amount of time before a final decision can be made at trial.

See In re Parentage of R.F.R., 122 Wash. App. 324, 93 P.3d 951 (2004).

49. West Virginia

(a) The relocation of a parent constitutes a substantial change in the circumstances under subsection 9-401(a) of the child only when it significantly impairs either parent's ability to exercise responsibilities that the parent has been exercising.

(b) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a parent who has responsibility under a parenting plan who changes, or intends to change, residences for more than ninety days must give a minimum of sixty days' advance notice, or the most notice practicable under the circumstances, to any other parent with responsibility under the same parenting plan. Notice shall include:

(1) The relocation date;

(2) The address of the intended new residence;

(3) The specific reasons for the proposed relocation;

(4) A proposal for how custodial responsibility shall be modified, in light of the intended move; and

(5) Information for the other parent as to how he or she may respond to the proposed relocation or modification of custodial responsibility.

Failure to comply with the notice requirements of this section without good cause may be a factor in the determination of whether the relocation is in good faith under subsection (d) of this section and is a basis for an award of reasonable expenses and reasonable attorney's fees to another parent that are attributable to such failure.

The supreme court of appeals shall make available through the offices of the circuit clerks and the secretary-clerks of the family courts a form notice that complies with the provisions of this subsection. The supreme court of appeals shall promulgate procedural rules that provide for an expedited hearing process to resolve issues arising from a relocation or proposed relocation.

(c) When changed circumstances are shown under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall, if practical, revise the parenting plan so as to both accommodate the relocation and maintain the same proportion of custodial responsibility being exercised by each of the parents. In making such revision, the court may consider the additional costs that a relocation imposes upon the respective parties for transportation and communication, and may equitably allocate such costs between the parties.

(d) When the relocation constituting changed circumstances under subsection (a) of this section renders it impractical to maintain the same proportion of custodial responsibility as that being exercised by each parent, the court shall modify the parenting plan in accordance with the child's best interests and in accordance with the following principles:

(1) A parent who has been exercising a significant majority of the custodial responsibility for the child should be allowed to relocate with the child so long as that parent shows that the relocation is in good faith for a legitimate purpose and to a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose. The percentage of custodial responsibility that constitutes a significant majority of custodial responsibility is seventy percent or more. A relocation is for a legitimate purpose if it is to be close to significant family or other support networks, for significant health reasons, to protect the safety of the child or another member of the child's household from significant risk of harm, to pursue a significant employment or educational opportunity or to be with one's spouse who is established, or who is pursuing a significant employment or educational opportunity, in another location. The relocating parent has the burden of proving of the legitimacy of any other purpose. A move with a legitimate purpose is reasonable unless its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving or by moving to a location that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent's relationship to the child.

(2) If a relocation of the parent is in good faith for legitimate purpose and to a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose and if neither has been exercising a significant majority of custodial responsibility for the child, the court shall reallocate custodial responsibility based on the best interest of the child, taking into account all relevant factors including the effects of the relocation on the child.

(3) If a parent does not establish that the purpose for that parent's relocation is in good faith for a legitimate purpose into a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose, the court may modify the parenting plan in accordance with the child's best interests and the effects of the relocation on the child. Among the modifications the court may consider is a reallocation of primary custodial responsibility, effective if and when the relocation occurs, but such a reallocation shall not be ordered if the relocating parent demonstrates that the child's best interests would be served by the relocation.

(4) The court shall attempt to minimize impairment to a parent-child relationship caused by a parent's relocation through alternative arrangements for the exercise of custodial responsibility appropriate to the parents' resources and circumstances and the developmental level of the child.

(e) In determining the proportion of caretaking functions each parent previously performed for the child under the parenting plan before relocation, the court may not consider a division of functions arising from any arrangements made after a relocation but before a modification hearing on the issues related to relocation.

(f) In determining the effect of the relocation or proposed relocation on a child, any interviewing or questioning of the child shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of rule 17 of the rules of practice and procedure for family law as promulgated by the supreme court of appeals. W. Va. Code, § 48-9-403.

50. Wisconsin

(1) Notice to other parent. (a) If the court grants periods of physical placement to more than one parent, it shall order a parent with legal custody of and physical placement rights to a child to provide not less than 60 days written notice to the other parent, with a copy to the court, of his or her intent to:

1. Establish his or her legal residence with the child at any location outside the state.

2. Establish his or her legal residence with the child at any location within this state that is at a distance of 150 miles or more from the other parent.

3. Remove the child from this state for more than 90 consecutive days.

(b) The parent shall send the notice under par. (a) by certified mail. The notice shall state the parent's proposed action, including the specific date and location of the move or specific beginning and ending dates and location of the removal, and that the other parent may object within the time specified in sub. (2)(a).

(2) Objection; Prohibition; mediation. (a) Within 15 days after receiving the notice under sub. (1), the other parent may send to the parent proposing the move or removal, with a copy to the court, a written notice of objection to the proposed action.

(b) If the parent who is proposing the move or removal receives a notice of objection under par. (a) within 20 days after sending a notice under sub. (1)(a), the parent may not move with or remove the child pending resolution of the dispute, or final order of the court under sub. (3), unless the parent obtains a temporary order to do so under s. 767.23(1)(bm).

(c) Upon receipt of a copy of a notice of objection under par. (a), the court or circuit court commissioner shall promptly refer the parents for mediation or other family court counseling services under s. 767.11 and may appoint a guardian ad litem. Unless the parents agree to extend the time period, if mediation or counseling services do not resolve the dispute within 30 days after referral, the matter shall proceed under subs. (3) to (5).

(3) Standards for modification or prohibition if move or removal contested. (a)1. Except as provided under par. (b), if the parent proposing the move or removal has sole legal or joint legal custody of the child and the child resides with that parent for the greater period of time, the parent objecting to the move or removal may file a petition, motion or order to show cause for modification of the legal custody or physical placement order affecting the child. The court may modify the legal custody or physical placement order if, after considering the factors under sub. (5), the court finds all of the following:

a. The modification is in the best interest of the child.

b. The move or removal will result in a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the last order affecting legal custody or the last order substantially affecting physical placement.

2. With respect to subd. 1.:

a. There is a rebuttable presumption that continuing the current allocation of decision making under a legal custody order or continuing the child's physical placement with the parent with whom the child resides for the greater period of time is in the best interest of the child. This presumption may be overcome by a showing that the move or removal is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child.

b. A change in the economic circumstances or marital status of either party is not sufficient to meet the standards for modification under that subdivision.

3. Under this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the parent objecting to the move or removal.

(b)1. If the parents have joint legal custody and substantially equal periods of physical placement with the child, either parent may file a petition, motion or order to show cause for modification of the legal custody or physical placement order. The court may modify an order of legal custody or physical placement if, after considering the factors under sub. (5), the court finds all of the following:

a. Circumstances make it impractical for the parties to continue to have substantially equal periods of physical placement.

b. The modification is in the best interest of the child.

2. Under this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the parent filing the petition, motion or order to show cause.

(c)1. If the parent proposing the move or removal has sole legal or joint legal custody of the child and the child resides with that parent for the greater period of time or the parents have substantially equal periods of physical placement with the child, as an alternative to the petition, motion or order to show cause under par. (a) or (b), the parent objecting to the move or removal may file a petition, motion or order to show cause for an order prohibiting the move or removal. The court may prohibit the move or removal if, after considering the factors under sub. (5), the court finds that the prohibition is in the best interest of the child.

2. Under this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the parent objecting to the move or removal.

(4) Guardian ad litem; prompt hearing. After a petition, motion or order to show cause is filed under sub. (3), the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem, unless s. 767.045(1)(am) applies, and shall hold a hearing as soon as possible.

(5) Factors in court's determination. In making its determination under sub. (3), the court shall consider all of the following factors:

(a) Whether the purpose of the proposed action is reasonable.

(b) The nature and extent of the child's relationship with the other parent and the disruption to that relationship which the proposed action may cause.

(c) The availability of alternative arrangements to foster and continue the child's relationship with and access to the other parent.

(5m) Discretionary factors to consider. In making a determination under sub. (3), the court may consider the child's adjustment to the home, school, religion and community.

(6) Notice required for other removals. (a) Unless the parents agree otherwise, a parent with legal custody and physical placement rights shall notify the other parent before removing the child from his or her primary residence for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b) Notwithstanding par. (a), if notice is required under sub. (1), a parent shall comply with sub. (1).

(c) Except as provided in par. (b), subs. (1) to (5) do not apply to a notice provided under par. (a).

(7) Applicability. Notwithstanding 1987 Wisconsin Act 355, section 73, as affected by 1987 Wisconsin Act 364, the parties may agree to the adjudication of a modification of a legal custody or physical placement order under this section in an action affecting the family that is pending on May 3, 1988. Wis. Stat. Ann. 767.327.

See Hughes v. Hughes, 223 Wis.2d 111, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1998).

51. Wyoming

Modification of custody based upon custodial parent’s relocation is determined under the general modification statute; substantial change in circumstances must be shown and that modification will serve the best interests of the child. Watt v. Watt, 971 P.2d 608 (Wyo. 1999).

Suggested Bibliography:

Annotation, Custodial Parent's Relocation as Grounds for Change of Custody, 70 A.L.R.5th 377 (2004).

Robert E. Oliphant, Relocation Custody Disputes: A Binuclear Family-Centered Three-Stage Solution, 25 N. Ill. U.L. Rev. 363 (2005).

Caroline Ritchie Heil, Relocation Cases as Change in Custody Proceedings: “Judicial Blackmail” or Competing Interests Reconciled, 51 S.C. L.Rev. 885 (2000).

Lucy S. McGough, Starting Over: The Heuristics of Family Relocation Decision Making, 77 St. John’s L.Rev. 291 (2003).

Charles P. Kindregan, Jr., Family Interests in Competition: Relocation and Visitation, 36 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 31 (2002).

Janet Leach Richards, Resolving Relocation Issues Pursuant to the ALI Family Dissolution Principles: Are Children Better Protected?, 2001 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1105 (2001).

Hon. Arline S. Rotman, Robert Tompkins, Lita Linzer Schwartz, M. Dee Samuels, Reconciling Parents’ and Children’s Interests in Relocation: In Whose Best Interest?, 38 Fam. & Conciliation Courts Rev. 341 (2000).

Edwin J. Terry, Kirstin L. Goodale, P. Caren Phelan, Jenny L. Womack, Relocation: Moving Forward or Moving Backward?, 31 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 983 (2000).