Many lawyers are in it for the money and will tell you anything you want to hear to get a case, and some are surprisingly ignorant on divorce law anyway, but I have come to have tremendous respect for Lawmoe.
Still, he overstates the situation in his thread below, as you are also doing. Let me qualify myself a bit too. I belong to two organizations that fight against move-aways. I study move-away cases at length and I discuss move-away issues with lawmakers, including those in Minnesota, where there seems to me to be strong anti-move-away sentiments. So I am not completely ignorant on the subject.
Let me say it again then. Lawmoe goes too far when he says that sally WILL be allowed to move as long as there is no imminent danger to the children. A certain percentage of move-away cases are blocked by a judge. This is true in every state, even those with strongly worded preference laws and clear caselaw. It is NOT a sure thing.
THE standard is the best interests of the children, as determined by that particular judge. That is not a mere tie-breaker preference. That is THE absolute bottom line and both parents have the right to try to convince a judge that their plan meets that standard.
I agree with you that sally not moving is the least likely outcome. I also agree that there is a value in suggesting possible scheduling plans post-move, although, to be honest, I really don't want to give her any advice that would increase her odds of succeeding in court.
If she does move, none of the options are good ones. I don't like to hear people try to act as if the removal of a parent is some type of sterile surgical procedure with no negative repercussions. "See kids? You lost your mom, but you have more gas money to drive to see her!" As if having a new X-Box at the cost of a mother is a wash. As if there is some magic visitation formula that makes the absence, the miles and the travel hours disappear.