CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Custody and Visitation
......Factors Considered in Cust./Visit. Award
.........Change of Residence/"Move Aways"
............Move Permitted
22 Cards On This Topic:

Custodial parent has right to change residence of child.

An evidentiary hearing is only required if the noncustodial parent can make a prima facie showing of prejudice from the planned move; absent such a showing the presumptive right to move controls.

Custodial parent may change C's residence, subject to court's power to restrain removal that would prejudice C's rights or welfare; no other burden may be placed on relocating parent.

Error to deny mother's move-away request w/out addressing the legal issue presented—what custody arrangement would be in the child's best interests when mother relocates; cannot assume she will not relocate.

When deciding move-away request, court must assume that parent is moving and consider all relevant factors, not just effect on noncustodial parent’s relationship with child.

Father's custody motion properly denied where he failed to establish detriment by reason of relocation; fact that custody order was by default does not alter his burden.

Trial ct. properly permitted W to move with C to Israel despite risks caused by violence.

In move-away case court properly placed burden on H to show detriment to children if W moved to Spain.

In move-away case under Burgess-Biallas, H not entitled to de novo custody review where arrangement, however denoted in judgment, amounted to sole physical custody for W and liberal visitation for H.

Looking to de facto custody arrangement, and not fiction of prior judgment not an impermissible collateral attack on judgment—method more likely to be fair and just and, in any case, mandated by Burgess.

Having found W was not acting in bad faith in moving to NM, and that it was in best interests of Cs for custody to be with her, trial court was bound to give W primary physical custody.

Once court determines that primary parent's motives for moving are in good faith and not to frustrate visitation, cannot weigh the wisdom of the move.

"Detriment" to child which can result in change of custody based upon primary parent's move must be more than the detriment that results from being away from other parent as a result of move.

Out of state move not a change of circumstances where parties don't have joint physical custody; de novo review incorrect where mother had primary physical custody; "joint physical custody" discussed.

W may relocate to Australia with children on condition she concedes to continuing jurisdiction of Cal court.

Burden on H to show changed circumstances of W's move required change of custody where W had substantial physical custody and H visitation.

In light of Burgess, question for trial court on remand is not whether W may be ••permitted•• to move; question is what custody arrangement should be made thereafter.

In move away cases, best interests of child may often be presumed to favor permanency of custodial placement with primary caretaker parent; test stated.

Where child is to be removed from a shared custody arrangement that is working, expedient-essential-imperative rule applies; rule not inconsistent with best interests test.

Substantial evidence supports conclusion child's best interests served by mother's retaining primary custody and allowing move to Alabama.

May not order custodial parent to move closer to other parent to facilitate visitation or shared custody. Absent intent to frustrate visitation or custody, may not restrict parent's right to move.

Removal of minors from state for purpose of new residence is permissible under certain circumstances.