Reform of Child Custody Laws - move away highlights

Chronology of Important Move-Away Cases in CA

Year

Case

Finding

1976

Marriage of Ciganovich

If the purpose of the move is to frustrate or deny visitation, then the move is not in the child's best interest.

1979

Marriage of Carney

The court first determines whether there has been a change of circumstances, then whether a change of custody is necessary or desirable for the child's best interest.

1986

Burchard v. Garay

If the custody arrangement is the result of a prior court order, it is presumed the existing order is in the child's best interest.

1986

Marriage of Rosson

The right to frequent and continuing contact with a child by the parent is an element in determining custody and visitation consistent with the child's best interest.

1991

Marriage of Carlson

The loss of the practical ability to visit with the child is an important and relevant factor in determining whether a move is in the child's best interest.

1992

Marriage of McGinnis

The NCP's ability to exercise visitation is an important, but not the only, factor in determining the child's best interest.

1994

Marriage of Battenburg

Where there is a pre-existing and successful shared parenting arrangement, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show that the move is necessary, expedient, and imperative.

1995

Cassady v. Signorelli

A move-away request can be denied if it serves to frustrate the NCP's right to joint custody and visitation.

1996

Marriage of Burgess

After a joint custody determination based on the child's best interest, the moving parent need not demonstrate that the move is necessary as a condition of maintaining custody.

1997

Marriage of Whealon

The NCP did not demonstrate a change of circumstance necessary for a change of custody.

1998

Marriage of Biallas

It clarified that Burgess applies to stipulated custody arrangements or orders. Also showed that actual timeshare is more important than the existing decree where the two are different.

1998

Edlund v. Hales

The court first determines if a move is based on sound reason; then the burden of proof falls to the NCP to demonstrate that the move is not in the child's best interest.

1998

Marriage of Condon

When moving to a foreign country, the moving parent must demonstrate that the de facto termination of visitation (caused by the large geographical distance) would be in the child's best interest.

2004

LaMusga v. LaMusga

Limits applicability of Burgess, which had been misinterpreted by lower courts as allowing a "presumptive right" of the custodial parent to relocate. Supreme Court holds that child's best interests are still more important than custodial parent's right to relocate, and the damage to the relationship between non-custodial parent and child must be considered in any relocation request.

Year	Case	Finding
1976	Marriage of Ciganovich	If the purpose of the move is to frustrate or deny visitation, then the move is not in the child's best interest.
1979	Marriage of Carney	The court first determines whether there has been a change of circumstances, then whether a change of custody is necessary or desirable for the child's best interest.
1986	Burchard v. Garay	If the custody arrangement is the result of a prior court order, it is presumed the existing order is in the child's best interest.
1986	Marriage of Rosson	The right to frequent and continuing contact with a child by the parent is an element in determining custody and visitation consistent with the child's best interest.
1991	Marriage of Carlson	The loss of the practical ability to visit with the child is an important and relevant factor in determining whether a move is in the child's best interest.
1992	Marriage of McGinnis	The NCP's ability to exercise visitation is an important, but not the only, factor in determining the child's best interest.
1994	Marriage of Battenburg	Where there is a pre-existing and successful shared parenting arrangement, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show that the move is necessary, expedient, and imperative.
1995	Cassady v. Signorelli	A move-away request can be denied if it serves to frustrate the NCP's right to joint custody and visitation.
1996	Marriage of Burgess	After a joint custody determination based on the child's best interest, the moving parent need not demonstrate that the move is necessary as a condition of maintaining custody.
1997	Marriage of Whealon	The NCP did not demonstrate a change of circumstance necessary for a change of custody.
1998	Marriage of Biallas	It clarified that Burgess applies to stipulated custody arrangements or orders. Also showed that actual timeshare is more important than the existing decree where the two are different.
1998	Edlund v. Hales	The court first determines if a move is based on sound reason; then the burden of proof falls to the NCP to demonstrate that the move is not in the child's best interest.
1998	Marriage of Condon	When moving to a foreign country, the moving parent must demonstrate that the de facto termination of visitation (caused by the large geographical distance) would be in the child's best interest.
2004	LaMusga v. LaMusga	Limits applicability of Burgess, which had been misinterpreted by lower courts as allowing a "presumptive right" of the custodial parent to relocate. Supreme Court holds that child's best interests are still more important than custodial parent's right to relocate, and the damage to the relationship between non-custodial parent and child must be considered in any relocation request.