| PhoenixRising |
| (Carpal \'Tunnel) |
| 06/21/07 08:32 PM |
Re: Opinions needed
|
You have joint legal therefore you are required to include your ex in the decision-making process concerning relocation..
What did he have to say on the subject?
What does your CO say as far as what is required when you both cannot jointly agree?
Unless you have addressed relocation in your CO, a move out of the area “may” be considered a change in circumstances. To keep a parent from relocating with the children, the other parent files a petition with the court to modify custody, visitation and child support. The court holds a hearing and each side presents evidence of environmental, educational, social and cultural opportunities and conditions in both places. The judge then decides whether it is in the best interest of the children to stay in Maryland or not.
Courts weigh heavily the presentation of a visitation plan that will maintain the bond between the non-moving parent and the child.
Courts believe that stability for children, that is, maintaining the status quo, is usually the best thing for children, especially children of divorce, so the burden is a heavy one
Relocation law draws it’s basis from Domingues, 323 Md. at 501
Its reasoning regarding the best way, to determine the best interests of the child when proposed relocation is involved, is based on the fundamental concept, also evident in the Jaramillo constitutional analysis, that there are no “absolutes” other than the best interests of the child. See Domingues, 323 Md. at 501; Jaramillo, 823 P.2d at 309 n.10
(“The respective interests of the parents are relevant . . . and should be considered by the court; but the interests of the child take precedence over any conflicting interest of either parent.”).
The Court of Appeals explained how the competing interests of the parents might be viewed differently, depending on the circumstances presented: The view that a court takes toward relocation may reflect an underlying philosophy of whether the interest of the child is best served by the certainty and stability of a primary caretaker, or by
ensuring significant day-to-day contact with both parents.
Certainly, the relationship that exists between the parents and the child before relocation is of critical importance.
If one parent has become the primary caretaker, and the other parent has become an occasional or infrequent visitor, evidencing little interest in day-to-day contact with the child, the adverse effects of a move by the custodial parent will be diminished. On the other hand, where both parents are interested, and are actively involved with the life of the child on a continuing basis, a move of any substantial distance may upset a very desirable environment, and may not be in the best interest of the child.
Id. at 501-02.
We conclude that the approach taken by the Court of Appeals in Domingues sufficiently protects the constitutional right to travel because it requires consideration of that right, and gives the parent choosing to exercise that right an equal footing as the other parent with respect to the burden to show the best interests of the children.
Accordingly, we see no reason, based on Saenz,
supra, or the right to travel, as recognized in other Supreme Court decisions, to modify the standards for considering relocation cases from that set forth in Domingues.