Relocation cases represent one of the
most difficult types of cases handled by family law attorneys. When handling
a modification of time-sharing or “custody,” the result nearly always is that
one parent or the other is going to see the children either somewhat more
or somewhat less with a different schedule or if “custody” changes,
even in that event, the children may no longer live with one parent but
the other parent still sees the children frequently. However, in a relocation
case, if one parent is given the green light to relocate 1500 miles away
with the children, time-sharing radically changes.
Instead of, for instance, every other weekend and one night a week,
the non-relocating parent may see the child over long weekends, and other
school vacations. Anyway you toss it; the time-sharing is now blocks
of time as opposed to 12 or so overnights per month.
|
|
Relocation cases often end up in trial as they are rarely resolved in mediation.
The reason is simple: the parent who opposes the relocation is faced with a
yes or no decision, there are really no shades of gray. Allowing your children
to move away with the other parent is something most parents are simply not
willing to do. On the other side of the coin, the parent who wishes to relocate
often, for a variety of possible reasons, is hell-bent on relocating.
Parents are free to agree, allowing one parent to relocate with the children.
The cases start out with no presumption for
or against a contested relocation. In a general sense, a relocation is defined
as a permanent move 50 miles or more from the residence of the person not seeking
to relocate. As in many areas of family law, the judge must consider numerous
factors, which are generally stated as follows
- The age and developmental stage of the child and the likely
impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational
and emotional development
.
- The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
non-relocating parent and the children through substitute time-sharing arrangements
taking into consideration the logistics of the substitute time-sharing as
well as the financial ability to carry out the substitute time-sharing and
whether the substitute time-sharing will foster a continuing meaningful relationship
between the children and the non-relocating parent. The court also must consider
the likelihood of the relocating parent complying with the substitute time-sharing
arrangements once that parent is out of the jurisdiction of the court. It
is very important to note here that the relationship between the non-relocating
parent and children need not be the same as before the relocation occurred.
The courts only need to find that the substitute time-sharing will foster
a continuing meaningful relationship. That may be different than
the relationship that existed before the relocation.
- The children’s preference, taking into consideration
the age and maturity of the children.
- Whether the relocation will enhance the general quality
of life for both the parent and children, including financial, emotional
or educational opportunities.
- The reasons each parent or other person is seeking or opposing
the relocation.
- The current employment and economic circumstances of each
parent and whether the proposed relocation is necessary to improve economic
circumstances of the parent seeking the relocation of the children.
- Whether or not the relocation is sought in good faith and
the extent to which the objecting parent has fulfilled his or her financial
obligations to the parent seeking relocation, including child support, alimony,
and marital property and marital debt obligations.
- The career and other opportunities available to the ejecting
parent if the relocation occurs.
- Any history of substance abuse or domestic violence including
the severity of such conduct and failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.
- Any other factors affecting children’s best interest:
At the end of the day, one of the most compelling reasons
for the judge to allow relocation centers around the issue of “improving the quality
of life for the parent and children.” That’s not to say that moving
to a small Midwestern town with no crime, excellent schools, and a beautiful
way of life will result in the judge rubber stamping your request to relocate.
As well, even in these tough economic times in South Florida and elsewhere,
a request to relocate simply to reduce living expenses as the basis for the
request is almost certainly a losing proposition. On the other hand, a classic
case may include a parent wishing to relocate to be with a supportive family
because the other parent refuses to pay child support, does not see the children,
or rarely sees the children. Throw in that there are wonderful job opportunities
in the new city and the parent wishing to relocate has been unable to find
any meaningful employment after being laid off from a career of many years.
If the city is one where the crime rate is low, the schools are excellent,
and the cost of living is one-half that of South Florida, those factors would,
of course, be helpful when combined with other factors. It would not hurt the
case if, on top of all these factors, the city is near an airline hub with
historically low airfares from South Florida, such as Atlanta. As well,
a big plus for the parent seeking to relocate would be if that parent never
denied the other parent timesharing and has always encouraged the other parent
to be more active in the children’s lives. That is not to say, that if
you are faced with these facts you will be absolutely allowed to relocate,
but these facts certainly spell out a case which would be headed in the right
direction for the parent wishing to relocate.
|
