The answer to the question above, really depends on what the party is asking. This question most frequently comes up when the custodial parent wishes to move, even a short distance, but out of the State of Michigan. Many times even a short move by the custodial parent can impair the relationship of the non-custodial parent. Some states restrict moving by statute, while others, including Michigan permit it only with written permission of the Court. Every divorce judgment contains a paragraph that states: "The custodial parent will not remove the residence/ domicile of the minor children out of this state without the prior written permission of the judge, or his successor".
Michigan Courts, following a New Jersey case's holding, use a method for examining the proposed move. There are 4 factors that determine whether the court will give permission for the move. Meeting the criteria allows the move, but if you don't, the judge will deny your request.
The first thing that the Court looks at is whether the prospective move has the capacity to improve the quality of the life for both the custodial parent and the child. The court looks to see if the quality of life for the child and the parent is going to increase. For example, if the parent is going to receive a raise in pay, the court will favor the move, because the family will benefit from the extra money. It is obvious that a judge will not allow a parent to subject a child to a non-beneficial economic environment compared to the one to which they already have.
The second factor that the Court takes a look at is whether the move is inspired by the custodial parent's desire to defeat or frustrate visitation by the non-custodial parent? With this factor the history of the custodial parent becomes very important. If the custodial parent has been cooperative, not withholding visitation, the Court will be more likely to favor the move. Cooperating early in the process, can help the custodial parent out when they are in need of relief allowing such a move later on.
The third factor that the Court takes a look at is the extent to which the non-custodial parent resists the move by the desire to secure a financial advantage in respect of continuing support obligation. The important thing is that the support obligation will never be canceled, but it may be modified for the costs of travel for parenting time.
The last factor that the Court will consider is the degree to which the court is satisfies that there will be a realistic opportunity for parenting time in lieu of the weekly pattern which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship with the non-custodial parent if removal is allowed. The Courts generally do not like to allow the custodial parent to move and shorten the non-custodial parent's visitation. The important thing to remember is that if you are the custodial parent and are moving, plan to allow more visitation time to the non-custodial parent; usually most, if not all of the summer school vacation. Also if the distance is too far, the custodial parent should offer to pay the travel expense, because the non-custodial parent, did not have that travel expense before the move. Although there is much availability to travel, cost is always a factor, no matter which method of transportation you choose.
It must be shown through all of this that the custodial parent is improving his or her life and that of the child, that the move is not harming and may be improving the relationship of the child with the non-custodial parent and there is no bomb dropped into the non-custodial parent's budget.
Rules of moving out of state have changed over the years and will continue to change. The courts believe the idea that a dad is just as important as a mother. If by moving, either of those relationships is substantially jeopardized, the Court is very likely to deny the move. Cooperation of parties for the benefit of both the custodial and non-custodial parent and the well being of the child are factors to which the Court looks to in deciding to allow or deny the request to move. Courts also look at the educational systems in both places, the cost of living, the crime rates and whether either party has family ties in the proposed new location.
The Michigan Supreme Court has just granted leave to appeal in a case involving the relocation issue and the D'Onofrio standards in June 2000.
