After 15 months of separation, daughters are affection starved begging for back tickles and rubs, pork roll, showing off their voices and new songs, playing monopoly. Juliette said it was like she was "just here!"


Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests... access page ...

After 15 months of separation, daughters are affection starved begging for back tickles and rubs, pork roll, showing off their voices and new songs, playing monopoly. Juliette said it was like she was "just here!"


Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children's Best Interests: New Evidence and Legal Considerations


Relocation cases, in which a divorced parent seeks to move away with the child, are among the knottiest problems facing family courts. The recent trend is to permit such moves, largely because of Wallerstein’s (1995) controversial amica curiae brief, which a recent court (Baures v. Lewis, 2001) interpreted as supporting the conclusion that “in general, what is good for the custodial parent is good for the child” (p. 222). The current study provides the first direct evidence on relocation by dividing college students into groups on the basis of their divorced parents’ move-away status. On most child outcomes, the ones whose parents moved are significantly disadvantaged. This suggests courts should give greater weight to the child’s separate interests in deciding such cases.


more:
thelizlibrary.org/liz/braver-relocation.pdf

Source:
facebook.com/stephen.meehan.9

4 Jurisdictions do disagree about whether an order conditioning continuation of primary custody on the parent’s remaining at the same residence must satisfy otherwise applicable modification standards. Among those courts that have issued conditional orders without determining whether the change of custody from one parent to the other would be justified under the rules applicable to custody modifications, see LaChapelle v. Mitten (2000, upholding court order conditioning mother’s custody on her return to Minnesota); Maeda v. Maeda (1990; upholding court order granting mother primary physical custody subject to transfer if she leaves the court’s jurisdiction); Lozinak v. Lozinak (1990; upholding conditional order providing mother with continued physical custody only if she stayed in Pennsylvania, and otherwise primary custody would change to father, under best interests test); Alfieri v. Alfieri (1987, upholding court order that made continued custody by mother contingent on return to New Mexico); see also Sullivan v. Sullivan (1993; conditioning mother’s custody on not moving, even after the court determined that best interests of child would not be served by change of custody to father)

Mommy: You are again reminded that we are under a Valid C...