Question: While my wife and I legally “share custody” of our two children, ages six and three, in actuality, she has primary custody and I have glorified visitation. Sure, I have the right to get their school schedules, go to their sporting events, and be told when they have medical problems. But, to me, “shared custody” or “joint custody” is nothing more than legislative lip service to parents who want to be more actively involved in their kids’ lives.

That aside, here’s my immediate problem: my wife now wants to relocate out of state for a new job and to take the children with her. My lawyer tells me I don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of keeping her from moving. What about all of this “parents’ rights” stuff? Does it mean nothing? Should I try to get custody of my children?

Answer: Relocation of children is one of the toughest decisions a court makes, given the fact that the issue pits the non-custodial parent’s right to be with his/her child/children against the custodial parent’s right to move.
While some states have adopted legislative or judicial presumptions opposing relocation of children without good cause, others have taken a more liberal approach, given today’s more mobile society, and favor relocation of children under appropriate circumstances.

Some states have established guidelines to be followed in deciding relocation cases, while other courts base their decisions upon the fact-specific evidence presented by both sides.
Guidelines used in other states to determine the child’s best interests may include 1) the real reasons for the move, 2) the child’s relationship with both parents, 3) how the move will affect the child’s future relationship with the non-custodial parent, 4) the economic, emotional, and educational benefits to the child, based on the move, 5) the likelihood that the relationship with the non-custodial parent can be retained with proper rights of visitation, 6) whether the move will substantially improve the parent’s and child’s quality of life, 7) the motives of both parents in taking positions for and against relocation, and 8) whether transportation costs are affordable.

A lot depends on where you live because, in some states, the courts have made it more difficult for a custodial parent to move children away if the other parent objects. In some instances, state legislatures have enacted laws providing that, as a matter of law, it is not in a child’s best interests to be removed from a non-custodial parent.

Bottom Line: Since the child’s best interests are paramount in any proceeding that deals with children, relocation cases – much like child custody -- are being decided in some states based upon the following guidelines: If the move is in the child’s best interests by the greater weight of the evidence, then relocation will be granted. If not, it won’t be granted.

To answer your question about trying to gain custody, standing alone, efforts by one spouse to relocate a child generally don’t constitute grounds for changing custody; however, relocation can be one of the factors used in a change-of-custody proceedings.

In the final analysis, it is the child’s best interests that count. Unfortunately, however, mortal man (or woman) cannot predict today if a move will really benefit the child in the long run. While the “proof in the pudding” will not be available until several years down the road, judges are giving it their best shots to make an appropriate decision based upon current facts. Still, they are being asked to do the impossible: that is, to predict the future.