Quote/If parents have already obtained a judgment for custody and parenting time from a court in Oregon, the current law requires a parent who wants to move more than 60 miles away from his or her current residence to provide reasonable notice, in writing, of the anticipated move to the other parent and to the court. After notice is given, either parent may file a motion for a custody and/or parenting plan modification. The parent who requests the modification has to show that the relocation would create a substantial change in circumstances, and that the change of circumstances occurred since the last order. A relocation constitutes a substantial change in circumstances if the relocation will adversely and significantly impact either parentís ability to care for the children.
Best Interests and Benefits
Oregon courts favor the living situation that is in the best interests of the children and consider whether the children will substantially benefit from a requested move with one parent. The courts do not consider what is solely in the best interests of the parents. The parent who was awarded custody of the children in a previous proceeding does not have a presumptive right to relocate with the children. If the negative and positive reasons for moving in a particular case are equal, the courts will vote against the relocation. Oregon courts may allow a move if the contact between the parent who is not moving with the children is continually poor or that parent is already uninvolved. Two Oregon cases illustrate these important points.
In the 2009 decision of In re Marriage of Federov, the Court of Appeals agreed with a lower courtís denial of a motherís request to permanently move her young daughter to Australia. The court stated that in Oregon, custodial parents do not automatically have the right to relocate with their children. Instead, the court pointed to the intent of the Oregon legislature in drafting the laws for modifying parenting plans. The only relevant factors the courts can consider are the childrenís best interests and the overall safety of all involved parties. Since moving the daughter to Australia would negatively impact her relationship with her father and he did not want to move there, the relocation was not in the childís best interests.
In the 2005 case of In re Marriage of Hamilton-Waller, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a lower courtís denial of a motherís request to move from Oregon to Holland. The court decided that even though the children would suffer some detrimental effects from limited parenting time with their father, it was in the childrenís best interests to remain with their mother when she relocated to Holland. The court pointed out that the move would benefit the children because the mother would be at home more and additional money would allow a better education. The courtís reasoning hinged on the motherís ability to provide for the childrenís special needs and the fatherís lack of parenting under the current parenting plan./quote
That's the big picture. In your brothers case he can file a motion for contempt if she skips his visitation, unless the p a renting plan gives her the right to take vacations that override his visitation.