By Kathleen-Elder Blakely, Esq.

The constantly changing landscape of move-away requests in the area of family law has once again changed. The California Supreme Court this month upheld its landmark holding from seven years ago [In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 C4th 25, 51 CR2d 444]. Under this decision the court held a parent seeking to relocate is not required to establish the move is "necessary" in order to be awarded physical custody of a minor child.

One of the most delicate issues that all family law courts and attorneys face is the struggle caused when one parent decides to move away from the general geographic area. Many times the non-custodial parent is left with little or no meaningful visitation with the children.

This month the California Supreme Court held in the case of LaMusga (2004, DJDAR 5164) the child's interests are paramount when trial courts undertake the difficult task of re-evaluating custody during relocation disputes. In this case, the court decided it would be in the best interest of the children to transfer the custody to the father because the mother was planning to move out of the state with the children.

In general, the courts look at the following factors when deciding whether to modify a custody order:

• The children's interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement
• The distance of the move
• The age of the children
• The children's relationship with both parents
• The parents' ability to communicate and cooperate effectively with each other
• The parents' willingness to put the children’s best interest above their own

The area of family law is a challenging and constantly changing environment. That's why it's so important that you discuss the particular facts of your case with an attorney if you are faced with a relocation issue or any other related family law matter.

###