{4:25 minutes to read} Relocation evaluations are difficult because they tend to be “black and white” cases by nature (the relocation is permitted or denied) and thus offer little opportunity for compromise.

Relocation, in the context of child custody proceedings, refers to a situation in which the custodial parent chooses to geographically move to a new location far enough from the non-custodial parent to potentially impact on his or her relationship with the child. Historically, the parent who wanted to relocate was required to show good cause for the move.

However, more recently, courts around the country (California has been a trendsetter) have begun to deviate from this model. In Burgess v. Burgess (1996), the Supreme Court of California ruled that the custodial parent seeking to relocate bears no burden to establish that it is necessary to do so, unless the move prejudices the rights or welfare of the child.  

That decision was quickly modified in a subsequent case heard by the Supreme Court of California, Lamusga v. Lamusga (2004), in which the following two-pronged test was introduced: 

1. A custodial parent has the right to relocate unless the noncustodial parent demonstrates that the move will be detrimental to the child; and
2. The court would be then required to re-examine the custodial arrangement if the move was to take place. 

Another important decision on relocation was rendered by the Connecticut Supreme Court, in Ireland v. Ireland (1998). In Ireland, the court required the custodial parent to prove that the relocation was dictated by legitimate reasons/needs. Specifically, the custodial parent was asked to demonstrate that the move was made in “good faith” (and not as part of a campaign designed to decrease the amount of contact between the child and the noncustodial parent). Once this prong is met—that is, request for relocation is determined to be based on bona fide reasons—the burden shifts to the non-custodial parent to demonstrate why the move would not be in the child’s best interest.

The thinking behind these aforementioned important court decisions had been reflected in debates in the psychological literature.

Some (noticeably, Wallerstein & Tanke 1996) argued that the relationship between the custodial parent and the child is the bedrock foundation of the family unit, and paramount to the child’s well-being. Therefore, this relationship should be preserved at all costs. To illustrate with a hypothetical example: if a custodial parent with a history of depression seeks to relocate because of economic necessity, and his/her request is denied, this could precipitate a depressive episode, which in turn might have a negative impact on the child. According to Wallerstein & Tanke (1996), the centrality of the well-functioning custodial parent is a critical protective factor for the child. On the other hand, other professionals (Warshack 2000, Kelly & Lamb 2003, Austin 2008) have argued that preserving a child’s relationship with both parents is critical.  

How is one to reconcile these disparate views? A review of the literature suggests that an emerging consensus is when both parents are meaningfully involved in a child’s life, ensuring the stability and continuity of both relationships are strongly recommended. Consistent with such view in recent years, the trend had been to shy away from any presumption (for or against relocation; see Elrod 2010, Sattler 2010, Taylor & Freeman 2010) and take a neutral approach focused on the child’s best interest; and herein lies the conundrum: how does one define what constitutes the child’s best interest? This appears to be a subjective interpretation.  

How would you determine if plans to relocate are in the best interest of your child? In the next article, we will discuss this topic further. Please contact me at nycforensics@gmail.com with comments or questions.

Dr. Alberto Yohananoff
NYC Forensics
dryohananoff@nycforensics.com
P: (646) 284-5600
F: (212) 706-9136

Posted in Forensic Evaluations