 The Laws On Relocating Children To Other States |
 |
 |
 Lawrence JonesLawrence R. Jones, Esq. is one of Ocean County’s most prominent matrimonial attorneys. He has authored over 50 published legal articles and is the author of “When a Marriage Ends: 30 Key Legal Issues.” He is also the author of the informational audiotapes, “Divorce in Ocean and Monmouth Counties.” He frequently lectures on divorce-related issues and previously served as on-air legal analyst for The Point radio, 94.3 FM. |
| View all articles by Lawrence Jones |
What happens following separation or divorce when one parent wishes to move with the parties’ child to another state over the other parent’s objection?
In New Jersey, the parent who wishes to relocate the child generally must file a removal application before a judge in the New Jersey Superior Court, Family Part. The judge will review the moving party’s position and the opposing party’s position, possibly conduct a hearing with witness testimony, and then Render a decision as to whether the move can take place and if so under what conditions.
Perhaps the main case in removal actions is Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). This New Jersey Supreme Court case sets forth general criteria which a Court may consider in ruling upon removal applications. Any parent seeking to either (a) relocate a child out of state or (b) oppose such a relocation may wish to read this opinion for informational purposes.
Under Baures, the court may start by examining the reasons given for the move and the opposition and the past history of dealings between the parties. Further, The Court may inquire as to whether the child will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to that which is available in New Jersey.
The Court may further weigh any special needs of the child that require accommodation and whether such accommodation or its equivalent is available in the new location. Additionally, the judge will likely examine whether a parenting time and communication schedule can be developed which will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child following relocation. A reduction in parenting time does not automatically mean that an alternate schedule is unreasonable or inappropriate.
The Court may also review the likelihood or unlikelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent if the move is allowed. Further points of consideration include the effect of the move on the extended family relationships here and in the new location.
If the Court finds the child to be of suitable age to state a preference, the Court may interview the child on this issue. If the child is entering his or her senior year of high school , the child generally should not be moved until graduation without his/her consent. The Court may also consider whether the noncustodial parent has the ability to relocate as well in order to be closer to the child.
In addition to the above, the Court generally has discretion to consider any other factors bearing on the child’s interest. Such factors may vary on a case by base basis.
The removal criteria in the Baures case has generally been adopted and incorporated into a New Jersey statute, N.J.S. 9:2-2, which governs the law of removal applications in New Jersey.
In some removal application cases, Baures may not be applicable. For example, what happens when two parents have shared physical custody of a child on a 50-50 or other similar basis? If one parent wishes to move to another state over the objection of the other parent, such a proposed move would generally affect the entire custodial status of the parents since it is generally impractical to continue 50- 50 parenting across state ines and great distances.
In such a circumstance, the Court may need to conduct a whole new custody determination. One of the most relevant New Jersey court cases addressing this situation is O’Connor v. O’Connor, 349 N.J. Super 381 (App. Div., 2002). A parent who is involved in a removal case may wish to read and compare the Baures case to the O’Connor case in considering the comparative approaches a court might take in judging a removal case. There are different legal issues raised by each case and it may be very helpful for a parent to review these cases with an attorney .
In removal cases, a court often appoints a professional psychologist at the parents’ joint expense to conduct an evaluation to help the court determine the child’s bond to each parent and whether the move will or will not be emotionally detrimental to the child.
The law office of Lawrence R. Jones, Esq. is knowledgeable on all family court matters. Call us at 732-818-1985
In New Jersey, the parent who wishes to relocate the child generally must file a removal application before a judge in the New Jersey Superior Court, Family Part. The judge will review the moving party’s position and the opposing party’s position, possibly conduct a hearing with witness testimony, and then Render a decision as to whether the move can take place and if so under what conditions.
Perhaps the main case in removal actions is Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). This New Jersey Supreme Court case sets forth general criteria which a Court may consider in ruling upon removal applications. Any parent seeking to either (a) relocate a child out of state or (b) oppose such a relocation may wish to read this opinion for informational purposes.
Under Baures, the court may start by examining the reasons given for the move and the opposition and the past history of dealings between the parties. Further, The Court may inquire as to whether the child will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to that which is available in New Jersey.
The Court may further weigh any special needs of the child that require accommodation and whether such accommodation or its equivalent is available in the new location. Additionally, the judge will likely examine whether a parenting time and communication schedule can be developed which will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child following relocation. A reduction in parenting time does not automatically mean that an alternate schedule is unreasonable or inappropriate. The Court may also review the likelihood or unlikelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent if the move is allowed. Further points of consideration include the effect of the move on the extended family relationships here and in the new location.
If the Court finds the child to be of suitable age to state a preference, the Court may interview the child on this issue. If the child is entering his or her senior year of high school , the child generally should not be moved until graduation without his/her consent. The Court may also consider whether the noncustodial parent has the ability to relocate as well in order to be closer to the child.
In addition to the above, the Court generally has discretion to consider any other factors bearing on the child’s interest. Such factors may vary on a case by base basis.
The removal criteria in the Baures case has generally been adopted and incorporated into a New Jersey statute, N.J.S. 9:2-2, which governs the law of removal applications in New Jersey.
In some removal application cases, Baures may not be applicable. For example, what happens when two parents have shared physical custody of a child on a 50-50 or other similar basis? If one parent wishes to move to another state over the objection of the other parent, such a proposed move would generally affect the entire custodial status of the parents since it is generally impractical to continue 50- 50 parenting across state ines and great distances.
In such a circumstance, the Court may need to conduct a whole new custody determination. One of the most relevant New Jersey court cases addressing this situation is O’Connor v. O’Connor, 349 N.J. Super 381 (App. Div., 2002). A parent who is involved in a removal case may wish to read and compare the Baures case to the O’Connor case in considering the comparative approaches a court might take in judging a removal case. There are different legal issues raised by each case and it may be very helpful for a parent to review these cases with an attorney .
In removal cases, a court often appoints a professional psychologist at the parents’ joint expense to conduct an evaluation to help the court determine the child’s bond to each parent and whether the move will or will not be emotionally detrimental to the child.
The law office of Lawrence R. Jones, Esq. is knowledgeable on all family court matters. Call us at 732-818-1985
- By Lawrence Jones
- Published 11/11/2009
- Law
