RELOCATION

WHAT JUDGES NEED TO HEAR AND YOUR CHANCES THAT LITTLE JOHNNY WILL GET TO MOVE

SUE CHRISMAN FAMILY COURT COMMISSIONER FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE CHATEAU ON THE LAKE AUGUST 7, 2015

RELOCATION: THE BASICS I.

SECTION 452.377.2: Notice of a proposed relocation of the residence of the child, or any party entitled to custody or visitation of the child, shall be given in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, to any party with custody or visitation rights. Absent exigent circumstances as determined by a court with jurisdiction, written notice shall be provided at least sixty days in advance of the proposed relocation. A. Section 452.377.1 defines “relocation” as a change in the child’s principal residence for 90 days or more. B. Section 452.377.2 states, however, that any party entitled to custody or visitation with the child must also give notice of [their] relocation. 1. The failure to give notice of a move is often evidence in proceedings because 452.377.5 specifically provides that it shall be considered a factor in determining whether custody and visitation should be modified—though that particular section refers only to the “relocation of a child.” 2. Third party custodians are not entitled to prevent relocation, but may bring cause of action to obtain a revised schedule of legal custody or visitation. Section 452.377.8. C. Notice “shall be given in writing by certified mail.” 1. This statutory requirement has been, at times, relaxed by the court system to be a requirement of “actual notice.” a. See Baxley v. Jarred, 91 S.W.3d 193 (W.D. 2002); Herigon v. Herigon, 121 S.W.3d (W.D. 2003); but see also Wright ex rel. McBath v. Wright, 129 S.W.3d 882 (W.D. 2004) (actual notice must be definite, not just I am “considering” moving); and Fleming v. Fleming, 446 S.W.3d 677 (W.D. 2014) (relocating parent must strictly comply with notice.) b. See Melton v. Collins, 134 S.W.3d 749 (S.D. 2004) (actual notice may be sufficient but must include informational requirements of statute); but see Abraham v. Abraham, 352 S.W.3d 617 (S.D. 2011) (en banc) (relocating parent must strictly comply with requirements of statute) (excellent discussion of prejudice-based analysis); and Allen v. Gatewood, 390 S.W.3d 245 (W.D.) (mother stated the move was to a 4,000 square foot home inherited by her fiancé, but provided an address to an open field and father did not then receive proper notice under §452.377— thus excusing father’s untimely filed objection to the relocation). 2 

 

c. Conclusion: if parties have opportunity to have the case heard in court, then the adequacy of the “notice” requirement will not be that relevant. If, on the other hand, an objection to relocation was not timely filed, then the notice will be scrutinized. II.

PRODCEDURE AND TIME DEADLINES: A. Absent exigent circumstances, relocating parent shall give written notice at least sixty days prior to move. 1. Exigent circumstances must be determined by a court with jurisdiction. a. Job offer? Spouse’s job offer? b. Landlord eviction? B. Notice must include: 1. The intended new residence, including the specific address and mailing address, if known, and if not known, the city; 2. The home telephone number of the new residence, if known (what if not a land line: old cell phone sufficient?); 3. The date of the intended move or proposed relocation; 4. A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation of a child, if applicable; and 5. A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation with the child, if applicable. C. There is a continuing duty to update the information contained in the notice. §452.377.3 RSMo. D. Non-relocating parent has thirty days from receipt of the notice to file a motion seeking an order to prevent the relocation. Section 452.377.7. 1. That motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit. 2. Affidavit must set forth the specific factual basis supporting a prohibition of the relocation. 3. The relocating party SHALL file a response to the motion within fourteen days, unless extended by the court for good cause. 4. The response shall include a counter-affidavit setting forth the facts in support of the relocation, as well as a proposed revised parenting plan. E. RELOCATION DOES NOT APPLY IF THERE HAS BEEN NO PRIOR CUSTODY ORDER. 3 

 

1. Guadreau v. Barnes, 429 S.W.3d 429 (E.D. 2014) (Mother was already living in Canada at time of the dissolution and Mother filed a Motion to Modify). 2. Day ex rel. Finnern v. Day, 256 S.W.3d 600 (E.D. 2008) (a consent PDL was not initial custody award requiring a relocation notice). 3. See also C.H. v. C.W., 412 S.W.3d (E.D. 2013) (trial court was not precluded from considering effect of move during pending litigation when making a determination of custody). F. ABSENT A TIMELY FILED OBJECTION, A PARENT WHO HAS STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH RELOCATION NOTICE HAS THE RIGHT TO RELOCATE (STATUTORY RELOCATION). 1. The non-relocating parent could still file a Motion to Modify and allege a change of circumstances. 2. The move would then be considered in the eight factor test. 3. BUT, the burden would be on the movant in the motion to modify— not the relocating parent (see below). G. IF NO NOTICE IS GIVEN AND THE PARENT MOVES THE CHILD, THE COURT SHALL: 1. Consider the failure of the notice a factor in determining whether custody and visitation should be modified (§452.377.5(1)); 2. Have a basis for ordering the return of the child (§452.377.5(2)); and 3. Have sufficient cause to order the party seeking to relocate the child to pay reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred by the party objecting to the relocation (§452-377.5(3)). H. WHEN NO NOTICE IS REQUIRED (§452.377.4): 1. In EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, where the court makes a finding that the health or safety of any adult or child would be unreasonably placed at risk by the disclosure of the required identifying information concerning a proposed relocation, the court MAY order: a. The specific address and telephone number not be disclosed; b. The notice requirements shall be waived; and c. Any other remedial action necessary to facilitate the best interest of the child. 2. PLEASE note the phrase EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: there would have to be some convincing evidence that there was a grave danger for the notice requirement to be waived entirely. III.

THE BURDEN: Relocating parent must carry the burden to prove that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and that the relocation would be in the best interest of the child. Section 452.377.9.

4   

A. TRIAL REMINDER: At a trial, the relocating parent presents their evidence first, even though the non-relocating parent filed the initial petition and initiated the litigation—since it is their burden. IV.

GOOD FAITH A. Absent a finding that a relocating parent is moving in order to specifically interfere with the non-relocating parent’s contact with the child, a trial court will most likely determine that the move is made in good faith. 1. See McDonald v. Burch, 91 S.W.3d 660 (W.D. 2002) (trial court questions trial court’s finding concerning good faith because focus was on mother’s past actions in dissolution proceeding, specifically denying that she did not intend to relocate—but ultimately not requiring reversal on that issue due to also finding that mother failed to show that the move was in the children’s best interest). 2. See also Swisher v. Swisher, 124 S.W.3d 477 (W.D. 2003) (reversal and remand of trial court’s finding that mother was moving in bad faith because of her representations in the dissolution proceeding concerning her intent to remarry and relocate and trial court did not reach best interest test). B. Unless there is evidence that the relocating parent is attempting to alienate the non-relocating parent, a court will most likely find that the move is made in good faith. (That is not to say that the move is objectively reasonable or a good idea.)

V.

BEST INTEREST ANALYSIS: Section 452.375.2 Prior to 1998, when the legislature amended the relocation statute to include the standard by which a court should determine whether relocation should be allowed, courts had relied on a four-part test found in Michel v. Michel, 834 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992): 1. The prospective advantages of the move in improving the general quality of life for the custodial parent and child (absent the “custodial parent” reference, this could be construed as “best interest” analysis; 2. The integrity of the custodial parent’s motives in relocating (whether primarily to defeat or frustrate visitation and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with substitute visitation orders) (“good faith” and “factor four” analysis); 3. The integrity of the noncustodial parent’s motives for opposing relocation and the extent to which it is intended to secure a financial advantage with respect to continuing child support; and 4. The realistic opportunity for visitation which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the child if relocation is permitted (factor two analysis).

5   

In 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court declared that the four-part Michel test was no longer to be applied. Stowe v. Spence, 41 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. 2001). A. THE EIGHT FACTOR BEST INTEREST TEST: 1. The wishes of the child’s parents as to custody and the proposed parenting plan submitted by both parties; 2. The needs of the child for a frequent, continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents and the ability and willingness of parents to actively perform their functions as mother and father for the needs of the child; 3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; 4. Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the other parent; 5. The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community; 6. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved, including any history of abuse of any individuals involved; 7. The intention of either parent to relocate the principal residence of the child; and 8. The wishes of a child as to the child’s custodian. B. RELOCATION IS FACT-SPECIFIC!! For an attorney with a client who is involved in a proposed relocation—whether representing the parent seeking to move or the parent seeking to have the court deny the move, it is imperative that you determine which facts aid your client (and which do not). VI.

CASE ANALYSIS: A. DISCLAIMER!! The materials include my review of the appellate cases since 2001, when the Michel four-part test ended. The review also includes some orders that were not appealed. The orders came from other judges to whom I reached out and asked if they had any noteworthy cases, as well as from my own computer directory. From my analysis of the appellate decisions and the unpublished orders, I pulled the relative information that I believed led to the eventual decision. I tried to categorize three areas that I believe impact a court’s decision: the distance of the move, the age of the children and the reason for the proposed move. I then added the factors that I believe the court relied on to either deny or allow the move. Please note that it is a SUBJECTIVE review. Some decisions were more easily analyzed than others. Some had tangential issues—which may or may not have been relevant. Finally, though more “denied” decisions are noted, that may be strictly as a result of more “no” decisions having been appealed.

6   

 

RELOCATION ALLOWED  

  MEHLER v. MARTIN, 440 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)    St. Genevieve County 

 

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Move  was  from  Ste.  Genevieve  to  Eureka–no  notice  because  Mother  said  they  had  agreement–which  Father  reneged on.  The move was to be closer to her new husband’s job following the foreclosure on their home in St.  Genevieve.  Mother  was  more  involved  with  children  and  attended  their  activities  more  frequently;  Father’s  sporadic  work  schedule  interfered  with  his  ability  to  be  involved;  Father  discussed  case  with  children  and  had  attempted  to  bribe children with offer to building a swimming pool; and Father had significant anger issues.  Distance Relatively short (62 miles)

Age of children Older

Reasons Job/Loss of home

Factors 2, 4, 6 (focused on involvement mostly)

 

 

 

 

HENRY v. HENRY, 353 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011)      New Madrid County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mother initially moved from New Madrid County to Memphis with three year old child.  Father initially objected– but then  agreed.   Original  judgment provided  extensive parenting time  for  Father  including  weekends  and  two  overnights during week.  After living only about a month in Memphis, Mother met McCormick, who was a lawyer.   After dating only a few months, they began discussing marriage.  At the first of 2010, Mother lost her rental home  because of foreclosure and McCormick was offered a transfer to Atlanta, Georgia–where he previously had lived  and where he owned a house.  McCormick accepted the transfer–Mother gave a two week notice–and the couple  moved to Georgia.  Court found “exigent circumstances” justified short notice; that relocation was okay because Mother had been  primary  caregiver;  that  Father  had  not  exercised  all  of  his  summer  parenting  time  when  child  still  lived  in  Missouri; and child would benefit from increased standard of living.  Distance Medium (7.25 hour drive)

Age of child Young

Reasons Boyfriend’s job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7   

Factors 2, 4, 5

 

 

 

ROBINSON v. ROBINSON, 338 S.W.3d 868 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011)    Jackson County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    During  dissolution,  Mother  sought  permission  to  move  to  Columbia,  where  her  parents  live.    Father  had  left  Mother two months after child was born, was living with his girlfriend and did not pay child support.  Father relied  on  his  parents  to  provide  place  where  he  could  exercise  his  parenting  time–which  he  sometimes  did  not  take  advantage of and left to go spend time with his girlfriend.  Mother had always been primary caregiver of child and  had supported child’s relationship with Father and his parents by providing all transportation to Father’s parent’s  home.  Mother could have opportunity for job advancement in Columbia and her parent’s support was important.   Trial Court:  No stable home for Dad–no financial support for child–had not exercised all of his parenting time. 

Distance 2 Hour Drive

Age of child Very Young – not school age

Reasons Closer to family and job advancement

Factors 2, 3

  WIGHTMAN v. WIGHTMAN, 295 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)    St. Louis County 

 

  Trial Court Denied but REVERSED ON APPEAL

Mother  was  a  personal  injury  attorney,  who  sought  to  relocate  to  North  Carolina,  where  some  of  her  family  resided.    She  maintained  she  had  better  job  prospects  there  and  that her  husband would  have  a  better  job  as  well.  Trial Court denied, finding that she would have better job prospects in Missouri because of her contacts, that her  husband’s salary would increase very little  in North Carolina, and that Father would be “cast out” of children’s  lives.  Appeals Court (J. Richter) reversed–saying that Mother’s testimony was sufficient (and only) evidence that  Court  received  about  her  job  prospects;  that  Father  had  not  exercised  all  of  his  parenting  time  (“sporadic”  as  characterized  in  opinion);  Father  had  been  prosecuted  twice  for  criminal  non‐support;  and  Mother  had  “thoroughly researched” Raleigh area to show children’s recreational and educational opportunities.    Distance Missouri to North Carolina

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Closer to family (alleged job)

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

 

ISAKSON v. ISAKSON, 277 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009)    Phelps County 

 

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Mother wanted to relocate from Rolla to Nixa, during the divorce.  Court allowed move.  Father failed to spend  time with the children and Nixa had “excellent educational opportunities.”   It  is  worth  noting  that  during  divorce,  Husband  had  engaged  in  misconduct  by  diverting  marital  assets  and  incurring enormous debt for gifts and trips for his paramours (plural).     

Distance 2 Hour drive

Age of children ?

Reasons Mother’s education

8   

Factors 2, 5

HUECKEL v. WONDEL, 270 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008)   

  Stoddard County 

 

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

 

Mother wanted to move from Dexter to Bell City.  One child was having behavior problems and Mother believed  smaller classrooms would help.  Mother and Father did not co‐parent well.  Father had refused to cooperate on  medical issues.   Trial Court found that Mother had been the primary caregiver and that she was willing to give Father significant  periods  of  visitation.    There  was  also  no  evidence  that  the  child  had  not  adjusted  to  his  new  home–to  which  Mother had moved prior to the trial.  Distance Dexter to Bell City (30 minute drive)

Age of children Elementary

Reasons School change/ smaller classrooms

Factors 2, 3, 5

   

 

RATTEREE v. WILL, 258 S.W.3d 864 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008)    St. Louis County 

 

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Mother wanted to move to San Francisco.  Her employer eliminated her position in St. Louis–but a better position  was available in San Francisco.  Her sister lives in San Francisco.  While all other relatives were in St. Louis, the  Trial Court found that Father had no stable home, and was financially irresponsible.  Father did not exercise all of  his parenting time with child until Mother became engaged.  Mother packed clothes and food for child when he  was going to be with Father.  Father returned bag full of dirty clothes.  Father routinely ate out with child rather  than preparing meals.  Vocational expert hired by Father did not know Mother’s educational background.   Distance Very Long St. Louis to San Francisco

Age of child Young (not yet elementary)

Reasons Job/Family

Factors 2, 3

 

JOHNSTON v. DUNHAM, 172 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. App. 2005)    Benton County – Warsaw 

    RELOCATION MOOT – moved without permission – Trial Court made Dad residential parent. 

  Three children–13, 12 & 11–Joint legal/physical–Dad had alternating weekends every Tuesday or Thursday, even  every weekend in June, and all of July.   Both  lived  in  Warsaw  after  divorce–within  a  few  blocks  of  each  other.    Mom  wanted  to  move  to  Harrisonville.   After Dad objected, Mom married man who lived in Harrisonville and in July, moved to Harrisonville.  Her lease  was up in Warsaw–and rather than renewing her employment, she found a job in Harrisonville.  The trial was set  for August, but the Judge recused, no new trial was set–so mom moved the kids to Harrisonville.  Trial was held  the  next  year  and  Court  modified  custody  for  the  children  to  live  with  Dad–finding  move  was  a  change  of  circumstances.  Distance Relatively short (69 miles)

Age of children Teen and preteen

Reasons New Marriage

 

9   

Factors (infer) 2, 3, 5

DORMAN V. DORMAN, 91 S.W.3d 167 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)      Pettis County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mother wanted to move from Sedalia to Grand Forks, North Dakota.  Mother had remarried to military husband– who was transferred to new post after his return from overseas duty.  Mother was child’s primary caretaker–had  taken child to all doctor’s appointments and been the parent to attend teacher conferences.  Father did not call  child daily.  Stepfather DID call child every day from overseas.  Mother was pregnant with half sister and child in  question was outgoing so that he would adjust to new location.  Distance Medium‐Long (11.5 hours)

Age of child Young

Reasons Husband – military assignment

Factors 2, 3, 4

    LOEBNER V. LOEBNER, 71 S.W.3d 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002)      St. Louis County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mom moved from Brighton to St. Peters.  She wished to move because the government was buying up homes in  her area and the area was deteriorating.  Father lived in Maryland Heights–but Mother could not afford a home  there.  The new location was 20 minutes further.  The child’s new school was further from Father and he would  lose time because he picked up the child from school each day and provided child care after school.  Mother did  not  give  60  days  notice,  but  that  was  justified.    Trial  Court  found  that  Mother  was  not  in  contempt  and  that  relocation  should  be  granted.    As  a  side  note,  Trial  Court  had  entered  a  modification  of  parenting  time  that  reduced  the  amount  of  time  Father  spent  with  the  child  on  Jewish  holidays–which  the  Appeals  Court  reversed  because there was no finding that a “restriction” of his parenting time was warranted under 452.400.  Distance Very short (20 minutes)

Age of child Young

Reasons Better home

Factors 2, 5

   

DELOTELL V. REMAKLUS, 95 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)      RELOCATION ALLOWED    St. Louis County    Father,  who  had custody,  wanted  to  move  to  California.    His  wife had  already  moved  to  take  over  her  family’s  business.  She was the only one who had expertise sufficient to run the business.  (Side note:  Father had taken  his wife’s name.)  Father was a real estate agent and anticipated he would have increased income in California.   Mother  had  not  been  significantly  involved  in  child’s  education  and  did  not  consistently  exercise  her  weekend  visits–though  she  did  exercise  summer  and  holidays.    There  was  a  direct  flight  available  for  child  to  return  to  Missouri.  Child was happy in Father’s home–where she had lived in that family unit since she was six.    Distance Great Missouri to California

Age of child 10 years old

Reasons Spouse’s employment

     

10   

Factors 2, 3, 5

WEAVER V. KELLING, 53 S.W.3d 610 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001)      Clay County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mother  and  Father  divorced  in  1995.    They  had  three  children.    Father  had  frequent  contact  including  one  overnight each weekend.  He frequently attended children’s sporting activities during the week.  In 1997, Mother  sought modification to move to an alternating weekend schedule.  In April of 1998, Mother remarried.  In October  of 1998, Mother’s husband accepted a promotion requiring him to transfer to Texas.  He had been employed with  the company for 19 years.  In 1999, Trial court allowed relocation finding that Mother had always been primary  caregiver and that her husband’s new job would allow her to be stay‐at‐home mom.  Back and forth schedule had  been hectic and trial court found that move might help communication.  Father would receive significant contact  during school holidays and summer.  (Trial Court obviously thought mom was better parent.) Case was originally  remanded due to trial court’s failure to include findings.    Distance Medium‐Long (11 hour drive)

Age of children Various

Reasons Spouse’s employment

Factors 2

  CULLISON V. THIESSEN, 51 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)      Vernon County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mother and Father divorced in 1988–with two children.  In 1997, Mother sought to have Father’s child support  increased.  He then sought to have his visitation decreased–from alternating weekends to only one weekend per  month.  Father did not object to Mother’s relocation to Colorado.  Mother drove the children to Missouri for his  weekend  visits.    Father  then  filed  a  Motion  to  Modify  and  Mother  returned  to  Nevada,  where  she  also  filed  a  modification.  While motions were pending, Mother remarried and her new husband moved to Ohio to pursue  business interests.  Trial court found children had a strong bond with Mother and not with Father.  The children  wanted  to  live  with  Mother  and  were  capable  of  adjusting  to  new  home.    Mother  could  work  from  home  if  relocation were allowed.    Distance Medium‐Long (12 hours)

Age of children Various

Reasons Spouse’s employment

Factors 2, 5

 

 

ROMANETTO V. WEIRICH, 48 S.W.3d 642 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001)      Macon County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Couple  divorced  in  1988  and  Father  was  granted  custody  of  3  year  old  son.    When  the  child  was  11,  Mother  became  primary  physical  custodian.    Within  2  months,  Mother  informed  Father  she  wanted  to  move  from  Moberly to Ohio due to her husband’s job transfer.  Though Father did not file objection to relocation, he did file  a  Motion  to  Return  Child  to  Missouri  and  Motion  to  Modify.    Trial  court  found  relocation  to  be  in  child’s  best  interest.  Child had better behavior, health and school performance since he lived with Mother.  Father was an  alcoholic, had encouraged child not to take medications for ADD, and he had been investigated for abuse against  his subsequent wife and one of her sons.  Distance Medium‐Long (9.45 hour drive)

Age of child Teen

Reasons Spouse’s employment

11   

Factors 2, 5, 6

   

GLADDING V. KELL, 53 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)       RELOCATION ALLOWED    St. Louis County    Mother  wanted  to  move  to  Florida  to  be  with  her  husband,  who  had  taken  new  employment,  which  was  described as a “chance of a lifetime.”  The children, ages 11 and 13, wished to move.  Father had his visitation  reduced from time allotted in divorce because he did not exercise all the time available.  Mother would be able to  continue to be home with children.  Even though some evidence was presented that Florida schools might not be  as good as Parkway schools, trial court found that Mother would ensure that children would have best education  possible – including, if necessary, enrolling them in private school.  Distance Long (15 hour drive)

Age of children Teen, preteen

Reasons Spouse’s employment

Factors 2, 8

 

ABERNATHY V. MEIER, 45VS.W.3d 917 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)        St. Louis County    RELOCATION ALLOWED    Mother was allowed to move to New Hampshire for a better job.  While a Judgment of Paternity had given Father  extensive time with the child, problems developed.  Child did not want to go with Father–ultimately resulting in  Father slapping child.  A child protection order was requested by GAL–Father’s overnights were suspended and  the  parents  attended  counseling.    Father’s  overnights  were  restored  and  three  months  later,  Mother  notified  Father of her new job.  Trial court found that her job opportunities were greater–which would lead to her greater  job satisfaction and have a positive effect on the child.  Court found the schools were comparable or better and  that  Father  could  still  have  meaningful  time  with  the  child  by  flying  back  to  Missouri  for  visits.    The  child’s  previous  strained  relationship  with  Father  was  mentioned–as  well  as  Mother’s  continual  encouragement  of  child’s relationship with Father.    Distance Long (20 hour drive)

Age of child Young

Reasons Employment

                      12   

Factors 2, 6

________________________________________________________________  UNPUBLISHED ORDERS—NOT APPEALED   

 

 

DAD v. WNH, (2014)      RELOCATION ALLOWED    Greene County    At the time of the Paternity Judgment, Father lived in Florida.  Provisions in the Parenting Plan provided differing  parenting times dependent upon the distance of the parent’s home.  Mother has been the primary caretaker of  the child throughout his life.  Mother worked in the hospitality field, but lost one job when the business closed.   Mother  had  a  long‐time  boyfriend  who  was  in  the  hail‐repair  field.    His  job  required  travel.    He  asked  for  a  promotion  and  was  given  a  job  as  a  manager  in  Oklahoma  City.    Mother  was  then  offered  a  position  if  she  completed training.  Father did not object and kept the child while Mother did the training.  Father now goes to  school  at  the  University  of  Missouri‐Kansas  City.    Mother  is  an  account  executive  at  the  hail  repair  facility.   Mother’s new job will afford her greater financial stability.  Her new schedule allows her to be at home with the  child during the evenings—something she could not do at her prior employment.  Mother’s mother lives in Dallas  and living in Oklahoma City will afford a greater opportunity to see the child.  The child has a close relationship  with his paternal grandmother.  Mother has tried to afford Father time with the child when possible.    Distance Oklahoma City (4.25 hours)

Age of child 5

Reasons Better income‐boyfriend

Factors 2, 4

 

 

 

  Greene County 

ELM v. TJM, (2014)     

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Mother  wanted  to  move  to  Denver,  Colorado.    She  was  a  nurse  and  could  easily  find  a  higher‐paying  position.   She had suffered pay decreases in her job in Springfield since the time of the Judgment.  She had asked Father to  help her financially but he had not.  In addition, Father’s new paramour had been harassing to her and Mother  wanted to put some distance between them.  Father had been unstable at times—though he was stable by the  time  of  the  trial.    Father  had  relocated  some  two  hours  away  from  Springfield  prior  to  the  trial.    Mother  has  always  been  cooperative  with  Father  in  arranging  parenting  time.    The  relocation  does  not  decrease  Father’s  parenting time.    Distance Denver, Colo. (12 hours)

Age of child 5

Reasons Employment/ Good schools

            13   

Factors 2, 4, 6

JLA v. KDB, (2013)    Greene County 

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

 

Mother wanted to move to Monett due to her recent marriage.  Her now‐husband has two older children who  attend school in Monett.  Her husband is self‐employed selling fitness equipment.  Mother is employed at Jack  Henry in Monett.  Father works at a job that allows him to be off during the early afternoon.  Father and Mother  have  had  trouble  co‐parenting.    Father  refuses  to  pull  into  the  driveway  to  pick  up  the  minor  child.    After  a  request  to  sign  off  on  a  vehicle,  one  exchange  resulted  in  Father  driving  off  with  Mother  clinging  to  the  door.   Father insists that the minor child shed all of Mother’s clothes upon her arrival at his apartment.  Father is able to  pick up the child from school and frequently volunteers at the school.  The child has a close relationship with the  paternal grandmother.  Mother has exhibited more constructive parenting attributes than Father.      Distance Relatively close (Monett) (45 miles)

Age of child 10

Reasons New Husband

Factors 2

 

  Greene County 

TT v. LT, (2013)     

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Father works as an airline pilot with a base in Atlanta, though he technically lives in Springfield.  Mother works as  a nurse.  Both Father and Mother have irregular work schedules, over which they have little control, and the child  spends  a  lot  of  time  in  childcare.    Mother  has  tried  to  arrange  her  shifts  to  accommodate  Father’s  time  in  Springfield.    Father  has  not  communicated  well  with  Mother  and  has  been  immature  at  times—such  as  being  upset when Mother’s boyfriend did not introduce himself, though Father took no initiative either.  Mother had an  opportunity for a normal working schedule that will greatly benefit the child by working as a school nurse.  The  new  job  will  pay  more,  which  will  benefit  the  child.    Mother’s  new  employment  is  close  to  the  home  of  her  boyfriend.    Distance Springfield to Peculiar, (2.5 hour drive)

Age of child 3

Reasons Employment with better hours/boyfriend/family

Factors 2, 4

 

ALL v. DM, (2008)   

  Greene County  

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

  Father had little involvement in the children’s lives when the couple was still together and limited contact since  the Paternity Judgment was entered.  Father had supervised visits at the children’s grandparent’s home.  Mother  wanted to move to Harrison, Arkansas, because of her fiancé and educational opportunities.  Mother has actively  parented the minor children and does encourage the girls to speak with their father on the phone.  Mother has  offered  to  provide  all  transportation.    Though  Father  will  lose  some  opportunities  for  connection  with  school  activities, an expanded contact schedule will actually be beneficial.      Distance Harrison, Arkansas (1.25 hour drive)

Age of children 4 & 6

Reasons Fiancé/Education

14   

Factors 2

  Greene County 

TLP‐W v. JCW, (2008)     

  RELOCATION ALLOWED 

Mother  had  accepted  a  position  teaching  at  Notre  Dame.    Father  lived  in  St.  Louis.    He  had  moved  from  Springfield  shortly  after  the  dissolution.    The  drive  from  St.  Louis  to  South  Bend,  Indiana,  is  significantly  longer  than the drive to Springfield.  Father did not file a Motion to Modify—seeking a change of custody, in spite of the  fact that Mother had already moved.  Ultimately, the Court found that it must judge the situation as it exists— with  Mother  being  the  residential  parent.    The  Court  found  that  the  child  will  be  exposed  to  a  more  culturally  diverse community and will receive an advantage of a tuition credit should he choose to attend Notre Dame.      Distance South Bend, Indiana (9.25 hour drive)

Age of child 5

Reasons Career  

   

 

15   

Factors

  RELOCATION DENIED   

PASTERNAK v. PASTERNAK, 2014 WL 4084862 (Mo. App. E.D.)      St. Francois County 

    Trial Court Allowed—Reversed on Appeal DENIED  Now on Transfer to SCT. 

 

Both parents were teachers in Farmington.  Mother lost her job (perhaps, intentionally) and sought move to Silva,  56 miles away.  Father had weekly Wednesday overnight and extended alternate weekends (Sunday overnight).    Father  was  heavily  involved  in  children’s  activities.    One  child  had  I.E.P.    Parents  were  high  conflict.    Mother’s  family lived in Silva and Silva was closer to her boyfriend.  Her job teaching at Silva paid less.  Mother stated the  move  was  in  children’s  best  interest  because  they  had  smaller  class  sizes  in  Silva  and  that  greater  distance  between Mom and Dad would be better because of conflict.    Appeals Court found children were attached to their current home and community; that the I.E.P. was working  well  in  current  school;  and  that  move–though  not  great  in  distance–would  greatly  diminish,  if  not  entirely  eliminate, Father’s ability to participate in children’s activities.  Distance Relatively short 56 miles

Age of children Elementary

Reasons Job/Family

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

  ALLEN v. GATEWOOD, 390 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013)     DeKalb County 

  

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother gave intent notice without correct address, causing Father’s delay in investigating proposed new home.   Notice  specified  4,000  square  foot  home.    In  reality,  it  was  a  modular  home–in  which  Mother  and child  would  reside with her fiancé and his mother.   Court  denied  the  relocation  finding  that  even  though  the  change  in  distance  was  slight  (26  miles)–it  would  interfere with Father’s ability to exercise two mid‐week parenting times.  Further, Mother failed to consult Father  prior to enrolling child in new school district and listed only herself on school form as having the right to make  legal decisions.  Child was well‐adjusted in his current community.    

Distance Short 26 miles

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Fiancé/Husband

           

16   

Factors 2, 4, 5

MITCHELL v. MITCHELL, 348 S.W.3d 816 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011)     

  McDonald County 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother wanted to move from McDonald County to Grove, Oklahoma.  Move would not affect Father’s parenting  time,  according  to  Mother.    Court  had  already  denied  the  relocation  once–but  Mother  purchased  a  home  in  Grove and sought permission again.  One child had I.E.P. and Court found that Mother failed to show child would  be better off in Grove schools–which had similar benefits.  Father had spent significant time with children outside  of his parenting time by visiting them at school, attending school functions and eating lunch at school.  Father had  offered  to  take  the  children  to  medical  appointments–but  Mother  had  refused.    Children  had  many  extracurricular activities in McDonald County–they had been involved in sports–but Mother restricted that after  first relocation was denied.  Distance Short (29 miles)

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Closer to her job

Factors 2, 3, 5

    HENDRY v. OSIA, 337 S.W.3d 759 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011)    Washington County 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother  sought  move  in  2007–which  was  denied  (260  S.W.3d  438).    She  again  sought  permission  for  move  to  Imperial, Missouri, about 50 miles away.  Father was coach of baseball team and saw children four to five days  each week.  Though there may have been better services for child with learning disability at new school, current  school offered “similar services.”  (See Mitchell, 348 S.W.3d 816 for opposite holding).  Trial Court relied on Father’s involvement with children and their involvement in extracurricular activities to deny  relocation.   Father’s Motion to Modify had been granted–but that was reversed on appeal.  Appeals Court found  no change of circumstances because trial court relied on Mother’s intent to relocate for change of circumstances,  which was ultimately denied.   

Distance Fairly close 50 minute drive

Age of children Young – not specified but elementary?

Reasons Not specified  

              17   

Factors 2, 5

CORTEZ v. CORTEZ, 317 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010)    McDonald County 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Appeals Court focused on whether Mother had absolute right to move since Father filed his Motion to Prevent 59  days after notice.  Appeals Court found that Mother’s notice was deficient.  Since Mother had not appealed the  decision itself–Appeals Court did not address that issue.  Mother relocated to Dallas, Texas.  Trial Court denied relocation.  Father had almost daily contact with child at  school and provided after‐school care for child three to four times a week.  Father was Vice President of Parent  Teacher Partnership.  Mother’s  move  was  premised  supposedly  upon  a  doctor’s  advice  to  quit  her  job  because  of  carpal  tunnel  syndrome, her desire to go to school (and Noel did not offer Spanish GED classes) and her mother’s illness (who  was actually her grandmother and who lived in Mexico).  By the time of the hearing, the “mother” had passed and  Mother was pregnant by illegal alien from Mexico.    

Distance Noel, Missouri to Dallas (6 hour drive)

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Closer to Friends and Family

Factors 2, 3

       

MANTONYA v. MANTONYA, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)      Henry County    RELOCATION DENIED 

  Mother sought move only 15 miles away to move into home with her new husband.  She had been living in a two  bedroom  apartment  in  Clinton.    One  child  was  in  elementary  school–the  other  would  be  starting.    Father  objected,  simply  based  on  the  change  of  schools.    Trial  Court  found  Mother  failed  in  her  burden–because  she  offered no evidence regarding new school.  Just because she could be “stay‐at‐home” mom with new husband– no evidence was offered that she could not do that in Clinton–supposing that new husband could move.  This case had no findings and Appeals Court had lengthy discussion as to whether that was required–ultimately– and after many gyration—concluding that findings were not required.  Distance Very short (15 miles)

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Remarriage

Factors 5

    BYRD v. STEGGALL, 296 S.W.3d 25 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)    Andrew County – St. Joseph

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother wanted to move to Iowa to move in with her fiancé–now husband.  Though Mother had “sole physical  custody,”  Father  had  equal  parenting  time.    He  regularly  exercised  his  parenting  time.    Trial  Court  found  that  move  would  interfere  with  Father’s  weekly  parenting  time.    Father’s  wife–who  was  Assistant  Principal  in  St.  Joseph, testified that child was in best school.   Distance 175 miles

Age of child Elementary

Reasons Mother’s Remarriage

18   

Factors 2, 5

 

 

LOWERY v. LOWERY, 287 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)    St. Louis County 

  RELOCATION Allowed—Reversed on Appeal—DENIED 

 

Mother and Father met while very young in Florida, where everyone lived.  Father’s family moved to St. Louis so  that  Father’s  mother  could  pursue  LLM.    Father  and  Mother  moved  with  them  since  they  were  financially  dependent.    After  separation  of  Father  and  Mother, Mother  wanted  to  move  back  to  Florida  where  her  family  resided.  She did not have a home or job in Florida–but testified she would stay with her mother and thought she  could get a job where she had worked previously.  Trial Court criticized Father still living with his parents and his  purchase of a Harley.  Trial Court felt it was unfair to deny Mother support of her own family so allowed move.  Appeals Court reversed.  Said move was speculative and could be denied on that basis alone.  The Appeals court  noted the CLOSE bond with paternal grandparents and did not like the unrealistic Parenting Plan.  Distance Missouri to Florida

Age of child Young

Reasons Closer to Family

Factors 2, 5

     

 

BUCK v. BUCK, 279 S.W.3d 547 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009)      Lawrence County    RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother  wanted  to  move  from  Verona  to  Republic.    Children’s  address  was  actually  Father’s  address–but  she  wanted to change it to her address.  She did not have employment in Republic.  Trial Court relied on Father’s contact with the children.  He attended all parent/teacher conferences; coached his  daughter’s teams; assisted with homework; and had Wednesday–Sunday parenting time.  Distance Relatively short Verona to Republic (24 minutes)

Age of children Elementary

Reasons Financial – layoff from employment

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

 

 

VAUGHN v. BOWMAN, 209 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)   

  St. Genevieve County 

  RELOCATION DENIED    Mother  wanted  to  relocate  from  Ste.  Genevieve  to  De  Soto–where  her  fiancé  had  job  prospects.    Prior  to  this  fiancé, Mother had live‐in boyfriend who was charged with child molestation.    Trial Court found that Father only goes without seeing child for two days; that child had contact with both sets of  grandparents in her current home; that Mother’s boyfriend did not actually have a job in De Soto; that child was  engaged in extracurricular activities and well‐adjusted to Ste. Genevieve community.  Distance Ste. Genevieve to De Soto (8 hour drive)

Age of child 9 (Elementary)

Reasons Fiancé’s Job

     

19   

Factors 2, 5

  SCHLOTMAN v. COSTA, 193 S.W.3d 430 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)      RELOCATION Allowed but Reversed due to lack of    Platte County    findings so DENIED    Joint legal and physical–Dad had alternating weekends–4 weeks in summer–lived in Weston–relocation to  Durham.  New husband was stationed there.  If she was allowed to relocate, Mom could be stay at home mom.   No ultimate conclusion by Appeals Court because of lack of findings.    Distance Long (17 hours)

Age of child Elementary

Reasons New Husband’s Job

Factors

 

    CLASSICK v. CLASSICK, 155 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005)      Greene County    RELOCATION DENIED    Mom wanted to move to Ohio with kids, 12, 10 and 10 (twins).  The family had moved often prior to divorce but  the  family  had  moved  to  Springfield  with  a  view  at  making  it  a  permanent  residence.    Marriage  was  dissolved  after Mom met someone else–whom she subsequently married.  New husband lived in Ohio–though he had tried  to  find  comparable  employment  in  Springfield.    Under  Parenting  Plan, Dad  had  3  weekends  each month  and  3  weeks in summer.  After the divorce, Dad purchased a home seven houses away from Mom to be near the kids.   He  always  exercised  his  time  and  spent  extra  time  when  possible.    He  was  heavily  involved  in  extracurricular  activities.  The children were doing well in school and had lots of friends.  Trial Court found that Dad’s significant  involvement would be destroyed if children moved to Ohio.  Distance Medium‐Long (11 hours)

Age of children One preteen & 2 elementary

Reasons New Husband’s Job

Factors 2, 3, 5

  LOFTIS v. LOFTIS, 148 S.W.3d 315 (Mo.App. S.D. 2004)      RELOCATION DENIED–Mother had to move back    Ozark County – Gainesville    within 75 miles of Father’s home    At time of divorce, Mom had already planned move to Granite City, Illinois, where her boyfriend lived.  Child was  very young and an agreed‐upon Parenting Plan was entered giving each parent alternating 2 week custody period,  but  no  residential  parent  was  named.    Exchanges  were  in  Rolla.    Mother  married  in  early  2002  and  Dad  filed  Motion to Modify wherein he sought sole legal and physical custody of the now almost 5 year old child.  Mom  filed  a  Counter  Motion.    Court  denied  Mother’s  relocation  and  found  that  Mom  should  live  within  75  miles  of  Dad.    Mother  did  not  appeal  the  relocation  decision.    She  complied  and  moved  to  Hollister.    Dad’s  appeal  of  custody award to Mom was overruled.  (Not really a relocation case—since the move was contemplated in the  original custody plan).  Distance Medium (4 hours)

Age of child Young

Reasons New Husband

  20   

Factors 2 ,3, 5

  FOHEY V. KNICKERBOCKER, 130 S.W.3d 730 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004)      RELOCATION Allowed–Reversed on Appeal so DENIED   Marion County – Hannibal    Mother  wanted  to  relocate  to  Ft.  Worth  for  a  better  job.    Father  was  actively  involved  with  child,  all  of  child’s  grandparents  lived  in  Hannibal.    Child  lived  in  house  in  good  neighborhood.    In  Texas,  child  would  live  in  apartment.  Mother did not know what daycare or school child would be attending–nor could she say specifically  how a better job would benefit the child.  Trial Court allowed–but Appeals Court reversed, finding no substantial  evidence that move would be in child’s best interest.    Distance Ft. Worth—Great (11.25 hours)

Age of child Young

Reasons Employment

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

    SWISHER V. SWISHER, 124 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003)      RELOCATION Denied on Bad Faith—   Jackson County    Appeals REVERSED    Mother  sought  to  relocate  to  join  her  new  husband  in  Oklahoma.    Divorce  was  granted  October  19,  2001.   January  7,  2002–Father  received  a  notice  of  relocation.    Trial  Judge  who  heard  dissolution  trial  also  heard  relocation.    Trial  Judge  denied  relocation  based  upon  Mother’s  assertions  in  dissolution  trial  that  she  had  no  “present” intent to remarry or move with children.  Trial Judge held that Mother had misled the Court while that  might be true, Appeals Court said that is not what “good faith” means–that it is simply the why of moving, not  about when the intent was formed.  It reversed the Trial Court–which may have had the final say–because it did  not reach “best interest” test – that would be taken up on record.  Distance Medium (5.5 hours)

Age of children Young

Reasons New Husband

Factors BAD FAITH‐No Best Interest Test

    HERIGON V. HERIGON, 121 S.W.3d 562 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003)      Platte County    RELOCATION DENIED    Mother wanted to move to Pennsylvania.  Father saw the two children–now teenagers–every weekend and was  actively involved in their daily lives.  No reason given for move–but reference made to Mother becoming stay‐at‐ home mom and increased income.  Inference is that Mother found a paramour.  Children were well‐adjusted in  school and community.  Children did not want to move.    Distance Pennsylvania—Great (16.5 hours)

Age of children Teens

Reasons Boyfriend?

 

21   

Factors 2, 5, 8

  MCDONALD V. BURCH, 91 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)      Platte County    RELOCATION DENIED    Mother  sought  to  relocate  to  Texas  with  the  two  young  children.    Mother  started  dating  Texas  man  before  divorce was final–though she HAD testified under oath that she had no boyfriend in Texas.  She married Texas  boyfriend five months after divorce.  Trial Court found she lacked good faith and relocation was not in children’s  best interest.  Appeals Court upheld Trial Court’s decision that proposed move was not in children’s best interest  but did not necessarily agree regarding findings of bad faith.  Father was active parent.  Mother had a history of  failed  marriages  and  unstable  housing.    The  maternal  family  lived  in  the  Ft.  Worth  area–but  they  were  not  a  particularly good influence.  Mother’s brother was convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor.  The maternal  grandmother was an alcoholic and had her own issues with stable housing.  Mother’s new husband had lived in  ten  homes  since  he  was  21  and  had  been  employed  in  several  fields.    He  had  not  sought  employment  in  the  Kansas City area.       

Distance Medium‐Long (11.25 hour drive)

Age of children Young

Reasons Moved to get married

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

    DIXON V. DIXON, 62 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)      Clay County   RELOCATION DENIED    Mother was a certified respiratory therapist and lost her job when the hospital closed.  Mother testified she could  not find a job in the Kansas City area and found a job instead in Muskogee, Oklahoma–where her family resided.   Father objected and Mother moved anyway–testifying that she had to or would lose her job.  She had been on  public  assistance  while  still  in  Missouri.    Father  still  had  alternating  weekends–but  could  not  have  Wednesday  visits.    Mother  did  give  him  extra  time  over  Christmas.    Trial  Court  found  that  she  had  relocated  in  bad  faith.   Father introduced evidence of multiple certified therapist jobs available in Kansas City.  Mother had insisted on  earning  $25  an  hour.    Jobs  in  Kansas  City  paid  $15  an  hour–which  is  what  Mother  earned  in  Oklahoma.    Child  spent 12 hours in daycare in Oklahoma.  Child had a good bond with Father’s new wife.     

Distance Medium (5 hour drive)

Age of child Young

Reasons Job/family

                22   

Factors 2, 3, 4, 5

  DEVORE V. DEVORE, 62 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001)      Jasper County    RELOCATION DENIED    Parties  divorced  in  1994.    They  had  a  two  year  old  son.    Mother  and  Father  both  remarried.    Mother  and  her  husband moved to Carl Junction.  Father and his wife built a home in Carl Junction to be close to child.  Mother’s  husband was a grocery store manager–ultimately losing his job when his store chain closed.  He found a new job–  earning substantially more money.  This allowed Mother to quit work.  He had to move to Lawton, Oklahoma–  though at first he believed he would be in Southeast Kansas.  Mother moved with the child when their home in  Carl Junction was purchased.  Father always had a close bond with child and attended every school function or  athletic event.  Trial Court found notice for moving was suspect because Mother and her husband never explored  alternative  employment  in  Joplin  area–despite  Mother’s  husband  being  approached  by  Walmart  for  possible  employment.    Distance Carl Junction, Missouri to Lawton, Oklahoma (4.75 hour drive)

Age of child Young

Reasons Spouse’s employment

Factors 2, 5

    BRETHORST V. BRETHORST, 50 S.W.3d 864 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)      St. Louis County    RELOCATION DENIED    Mother moved to North Carolina to accept a promotion with her employer, IBM – who was “downsizing” in St.  Louis.  Mother’s “gentleman friend” also moved to North Carolina with her.  Father was a police officer who was  actively  involved  in  children’s  activities.    He  coached  their  soccer  and  baseball  teams.    Mother  and  Father  had  cooperated to maximize his  ability to see the children to coincide with his days off.  A move to North Carolina  would negatively impact this flexibility to see the children or his comp. time because he often worked holidays.    Distance Long (13 hour drive)

Age of children Young

Reasons Promotion at employment

                    23   

Factors 2, 3, 5

  UNPUBLISHED ORDERS—NOT APPLEAED   

KLR v. JG, (2015)    Greene County  

  RELOCATION DENIED 

 

Mother wanted to move from Springfield to Georgia in order to live with her new husband.  Mother had stayed in  Missouri  while  the  litigation  was  pending.    Mother  had  a  long‐standing  relationship  with  her  husband  prior  to  their marriage.  She and her new husband have two children.  Father has been an involved parent, especially in  the children’s education.  Almost all of the extended family live in Missouri—rather than Georgia.  The children  have a particularly close relationship with their maternal grandparents with whom they spent extensive time both  before and after school.  The oldest child expressed that she did not want to move.  The youngest two children  also stated they do not wish to move—though Mother believes this is rooted more in a fear of change.    Distance Georgia (13 hours)

Age of children 14, 11 & 9

Reasons New Husband in military

Factors 2, 3, 8

    RAS v. CRM    Greene County (2014) 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

After  protracted  litigation,  a  Judgment  of  Paternity  was  entered  in  early  2014.    Father  lived  in  Oklahoma  and  Mother lived in Springfield.  The parenting plan provided for Father to have every other weekend contact.  At the  paternity trial, Mother had opposed the every other weekend schedule—maintaining that it was too much travel  for the child.  Shortly after the Judgment, Mother announced her intention to move to Dallas.  Mother’s proposed  visitation  schedule  was  the one‐weekend a  month that she  had  wanted  in  the  original  proceeding.    Her  stated  reasons for moving was to “pursue career opportunities and to be closer to family.”  Mother had graduated with  a degree in hospitality management.  Mother did not conduct an exhaustive search for jobs in Springfield and the  trial  court  did  not  attach  credibility  to  her  testimony  that  she  had.    Father  had  been  an  involved  parent  and  complied with all of Mother’s demands on a restrictive schedule prior to the Judgment being entered.  His job  hours allowed him to travel to Springfield to participate in after school activities—but he would not be able to do  that  if  the  move  was  allowed.    The  child  had  a  close  relationship  with  maternal  relatives  in  Springfield  and  Father’s  relatives  in  Oklahoma,  which  would  be  diminished  if  Mother  moved.    The  Court  found  Mother’s  past  behaviors indicated she would not be the parent to allow the other parent additional time.    Distance Springfield to Dallas (7 hours)

Age of child Young

Reasons Job—Family

     

24   

Factors 2, 3, 4, 5

 

  Greene County 

SWR v. JSW, (2013)   

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother wanted to relocate to be with her husband in North Carolina.  She and her now‐husband lived together in  Springfield and had one child together.  Her husband joined the military after they married and when she became  pregnant  with  her  second  child.    Father  had  parenting  time  nearly  every  weekend  due  to  his  work  schedule.   Mother did not  work  after  she  and  her husband had  the  first  child.   Father  has  exhibited  odd  behaviors  in  the  past, but is able to hold down a job and function well.  A neighbor testified that Father was a good father.  The  minor child had a good relationship with Father.  The move would significantly impact his ability to see the minor  child.  All of the child’s family members live in Missouri and the child is well‐adjusted to her home.   Distance North Carolina (15 hour drive)

Age of child 8

Reasons Husband in military

Factors 3, 4, 5

 

B v. B    Vernon County (2011) 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Both parents’ homes were designated residential–and the parents had shared custody (50‐50 time).  Mom and  Dad grew up in Nevada and lived there.  Dad had gone to law school in Texas – and was licensed to practice there.   He practiced briefly–then went into the Army.  Dad is now a salesman for medical devices and worries that his job  may be eliminated because he has not met his quota.  Dad has remarried to a woman originally from Nevada–but  who lives in Ft. Worth–where he now wants to move.  Father would begin practicing law again and also coach  wrestling at the school where his new wife works.  Minor child has interest in wrestling and Father believes he  could compete in Olympics.  Dad proposes to fly child back and forth at least once a month.   Distance Nevada to Ft. Worth, Texas (7.25 hour drive)

Age of child

Reasons

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

C v. S (2011)    Sullivan County 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

 

Mom and Dad shared parenting time with child.  Mom lost her job and wanted to relocate to Jefferson City area  (where  her  new  husband  happened  to  reside).    She  had actually  looked  for  a  job  in  Sullivan  County–but  it  is  a  rural area.  Move would make equal parenting time impossible–there would be a substantial decrease in the amount of time  Dad could have if Mom moves.  Dad was highly involved in school activities and coached the child’s ball team.  All of Dad’s family lives nearby in Sullivan County–while only Mom’s new husband’s close family members live in  Jefferson City area.  Mom’s close family members also live near Sullivan County.   Child has always attended school in Sullivan County–and although there might be more extracurricular activities  available in Jefferson City–there are activities available in Sullivan county in which the child has participated.     Distance Sullivan County to Jefferson City (2.5 hour drive)

Age of child

Reasons Job

25   

Factors 2, 3, 5

KC v. TS, (2011)    Sullivan County 

  RELOCATION DENIED  

 

  Mother  worked  at  a  hospital,  where  her  income  was  decreased.    She  looked  for  a  job  locally,  but  ultimately found one in a facility that was close to where her new husband resided.  Father and Mother had equal  time  with  the  child.    Father  was  a  coach  on  the  child’s  ball  teams.    The  distance  between  the  homes  if  the  relocation  were  allowed  would  substantially  decrease  Father’s  time  with  the  child.    Both  Mother  and  Father’s  family live in the Sullivan County area.  All of the extended family often see the child and the move would limit  their contact as well.  While the child had some behavioral problems at his current school, they only occurred on  one occasion.  He had friends at school and was well‐adjusted.   Distance 150 miles Sullivan Co. to Jeff. City

Age of child 8

Reasons Mother’s Employment and new husband

Factors 2, 3, 5, 8

  S v. H (2010)      RELOCATION DENIED since Mom had already  changed her address–modified the Judgment and   

  St. Louis County – Ballwin

gave Dad residential parent status. 

   

Child  had  been  adopted–had  ADHD,  which  was  treated  by  the  physicians  in  the  St.  Louis  area.    Child  had  IEP– adjusted well in school, had many friends and participated in sports.  Child’s 16 year old sister lives in St. Louis  County.    Mom renewed a relationship with prior high school boyfriend–who lived in Florida.  Mom was now pregnant with  his child–they “suddenly” married in May/2010.  Mom had been going to Florida once a month for a visit.  Mother  had made plans to permanently move to Florida.  Mom works as a mediator with CitiMortgage–no guarantee that  she will have a job in Florida.  Mom’s new husband does not have children and does not have experience with  children.    Dad  is  disciplinarian  and  has  received  extensive  training  on  how  to  raise  children  in  the  foster  care  system.  Mother had to have Father’s help in disciplining the child at times.    Distance St. Louis to Florida (15 hours)

Age of child

Reasons

Factors Unclear 2, 3 probably

 

 

  Greene County 

BLP v. DKP, (2008)   

  RELOCATION DENIED  

Father and Mother agreed to a split‐custody arrangement in January of 2008.  In April of 2008, Father notified  Mother than he intended to move to Arkansas to pursue a Master’s degree in Emergency Management.  He had  not  yet, however,  completed  a  bachelor’s  degree.   Father  had  an Associate’s Degree  through  Cox  Hospital  and  worked as a nurse.  Father attended monthly weekend military duty in Arkansas.  His proposed move would be  closer to his military duty.  Father proposed that the parents do exchanges in Harrison.  Due to the split custody,  the parents would travel every weekend for the exchanges.    Distance London, Arkansas (3.25 hour drive)

Age of children 8 & 12

Reasons Education

26   

Factors 3, 5

B v. J (2008)   

  Cole County 

  RELOCATION DENIED    Mom remarried and her new husband took a job in St. Louis.  Mom wants to go to accelerated nursing school  program – which would leave child in daycare or with her husband.  Parents had close to a 50‐50 split.  Relocation will significantly affect child’s interaction with Dad and all family members and the child has resided in  Cole County his entire life.  Distance Cole County to St. Louis (2.25 hour drive)  

Age of child

Reasons Remarriage, school

Factors 3, 5

BW v. JAS, (2008)    Cole County 

  RELOCATION DENIED  

 

Mother asked for permission to move from Jefferson City to St. Louis, where her new husband had taken a job.   Father and Mother had pretty much equal parenting time.  The new proposed schedule would reduce Father’s  time  to  every  other  weekend.    Mother  was  attending  an  accelerated  nursing  program  which  would  mean  the  stepfather would be a shared caretaker for the minor child or that the child would spend considerable time in a  child care facility.  All of the maternal and paternal grandparents live in the Jefferson City area.      Distance 100 miles Jeff. City to St. Louis

Age of child young

Reasons New Husband & His Job/ Education

Factors 2, 3, 5

 

  SLC v. CAC, (2008)    Greene County 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother’s move was motivated by her desire to seek a doctorate degree.  There were no firm class schedules at  the  University of  Arkansas,  but  Mother  would  attend  possibly  one  evening  class.    Father  had been an  involved  parent, who sought a job with flexible hours so that he was able to participate in the child’s life.  The relocation  would significantly impact his parenting time with the child.  Father attends child’s special activities and takes her  to  doctor  and  dentist  appointments.    The  most  significant  factors  that  the  Court  considered  in  reaching  its  decision are factors two and four.      Distance Farmington, Arkansas (2.25 hour drive)

Age of child young

Reasons Education  

      27   

Factors 2, 4, 5

B v. W, (2007)     

  RELOCATION DENIED 

  Greene County 

Mother had moved multiple times after the initial divorce decree in 1998 and relocated to Missouri to be closer  to her parents.  Father moved from Texas to Missouri in order to reside closer to the children.  Since moving to  Missouri, he had been able to participate in the children’s activities.  Prior to the litigation, Father and Mother  had a week on and week off schedule.  Mother wanted to move to Phoenix for a higher paying job.  Phoenix has a  higher  cost  of living  than Springfield,  Missouri.    Mother  had  actually  already  moved to  Phoenix  with  her  fiancé  and had signed a lease on a home costing $2,000.00 per month.  Mother’s fiancé was unemployed.  He worked as  a  professional  fisherman.    The  children  had  a  close  relationship  with  the  grandparents  in  Missouri.    The  move  would substantially affect the children’s time with Father and the grandparents. 

Distance Phoenix, Arizona (20 hour drive)

Age of children Pre‐teens

Reasons Job with greater wages/Fiancé

Factors 2, 3, 4, 6

 

PER v. RAW, (2007)    Greene County 

 

  RELOCATION DENIED 

Mother  and  her  husband  wanted  to  move  to  Iowa  supposedly  because  of  the  wishes  of  the  child.    Prior  to  Mother’s  marriage  with  her  husband,  the  child  had  no  problem  with  Father’s  same‐sex  relationship.    After  Mother’s  marriage  and  attendance  at  the  “Open  Door”  Baptist  Church,  the  child  began  expressing  problems.   Mother allowed the child to drop out of school and began home schooling.  The child was working at an organic  farm in Iowa and had a girlfriend.  Not surprisingly, the child wanted to stay in Iowa.  Father’s contact would be  significantly decreased and very restricted if relocation were permitted.  The child does have a close relationship  with  his  Mother  and  the  relationship  with  his  Father  has  been  strained  because  of  the  court  actions.      Family  members live in the Springfield area.  Mother testified that she might relocate to Indianapolis from Iowa if “things  open up.”  Distance Muscatine, Iowa (7 hour drive)

Age of child 16

Reasons Church/Family

 

              28   

Factors 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

ANALYSIS OF CASES   A. MORE DENIED THAN ALLOWED 1. Product of more “denied” cases appealed? 2. Very few cases reversed on appeal. 3. Anecdotal analysis of Greene County cases suggest that slightly more denied. B. GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF BEING DENIED IF CASE IS IN MORE RURAL AREA. 1. More emphasis on the importance of close family members? 2. Less or more likelihood that relocating parent has found better employment?  

RELOCATIONS ALLOWED Kansas City 

St. Louis 

Springfield 

Rural 

2 

6 

6 

8 

   

RELOCATIONS DENIED

 

Kansas City 

St. Louis 

Springfield 

Rural 

5 

3 

8 

17 

 

29   

FACTOR ANALYIS OR WHAT FACTS SHOULD YOU FOCUS ON?

A. FACTOR TWO: THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS OF THE PARENTS TO ACTIVELY PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS AS MOTHER AND FATHER. 1. This factor is where I typically consider the history of the parties. a. b. c. d.

Has one parent had a history of instability? Has a parent moved frequently? Despite this history, have they always performed their parental roles? Have each parent responded when asked to take the child to a doctor’s appointment? e. Does each parent participate in parent-teacher conferences? f. Does each parent ensure that the child’s homework is completed? 2. Has a remarriage affected the parent’s participation in parental functions? a. Has the new wife/husband/significant other affected the parent’s relationship with the child? b. Has that parent now given more attention to step-children rather than the biological child? 3. Has either parent involved the child in adult-matters? a. Does the child witness arguments between the parents? b. Does the child know the nature of the arguments? c. Has one parent involved the child more than the other? 4. The non-relocating parent’s role, which is important in relocation cases. a. b. c. d. e. f.

Just how active is the non-residential parent? Do they have special involvement at the child’s school? Do they coach the child’s baseball team? Does the non-residential parent rely on the grandparents too much? Is the non-relocating parent just a “good-time” parent? Does the non-relocating parent ensure that the child has clean clothes and prepared for school?

5. Do the parents have a good relationship? a. Has the relocating parent been supportive of the other parent’s role? b. Has one parent shown immaturity or the inability to move beyond the past?

30   

B. FACTOR THREE: THE INTERACTION AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE CHILD WITH PARENTS, SIBLINGS, AND ANY OTHER PERSON WHO MAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST. 1. HALF-SIBLINGS. a. b. c. d.

Has either parent had children with someone else? Is this an older or younger step-sibling? Recent addition or not? What’s the nature of the relationship between the child and the halfsibling? Good? Or not so good? e. Are the half-siblings in the relocating parent’s home or are they with the non-relocating parent? 2. GRANDPARENTS. a. Has the child continually gone to a grandparent’s home rather than daycare? b. Are the grandparents a good influence on the child? c. Are the grandparents supportive of the other parent? 3. STEP-PARENTS/SIGNIFICANT OTHERS. a. b. c. d. e. f.

Is this a long term significant other or step-parent? One in a long line? Are they a good influence? DWIs? Old DWIs or new? Their history of stability? Good influence or not?

4. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO MAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT CHILD. a. Counselor who has a long relationship with child?

C. FACTOR FOUR: WHICH PARENT IS MORE LIKELY TO ALLOW THE CHILD FREQUENT, CONTINUING AND MEANINGFUL CONTACT WITH THE OTHER PARENT. 1. Has the relocating parent been inflexible on arranging parenting time? 2. Is their evidence that they have been difficult or impossible to deal with when times for exchanges have to be changed or altered? 3. Does the relocating parent communicate well with the non-relocating parent? 4. Does the relocating parent always tell the non-relocating parent about extracurricular activities or school functions? 5. A history of denying parenting time does not bode well when considering how that relocating parent will be able to assist in ensuring frequent contact to the non-relocating parent. 31   

D. FACTOR FIVE: THE CHILD’S ADJUSTMENT TO THE CHILD’S HOME, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY. 1. Is the child doing well in school? 2. If they are not doing well, would a move be beneficial? 3. If they are doing well, are they the kind of child who would adapt easily to a new school? 4. Do they have many friends? 5. Are the friends a good influence? Or not so good? 6. Are they the kind of child who could easily make new friends? 7. Or are they the kind of child who is an introvert who has difficulty? 8. Do they have special interests in the community? 9. Do they regularly take part in an activity that competes and which could not easily be duplicated if a move was allowed? 10. Or do they regularly take part in an activity and the relocation would allow them greater exposure? E. FACTOR EIGHT: THE WISHES OF A CHILD AS TO THE CHILD’S CUSTODIAN. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Hugely important the older the child gets as long as the child is doing well. If the child is not doing well, then not so much. What are the child’s reasons? Good? Or not so good? Does the non-relocating parent have a stable home or is there no viable alternative if the relocating parent moves in spite of the child not being able to move?

THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE FACTORS A. Maybe the most important question: What has been the role of the non-relocating parent in the life of the child?

B. Second question: But is there anything that could outweigh that role?

32   

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS

A. Section 452.377.10 requires that a new parenting schedule be entered if relocation is allowed, in addition to delegating transportation costs, which may be accomplished by adjusting child support. B. Attorney fees may not be assessed against a party who objects to a relocation in good faith. Section 452.377.13 RSMo. C. A trial court need not specifically set out the eight factors when making its determination in a relocation case. Mantonya v. Mantonya, 311 S.W.3d 392 (Mo. App. W.D. (2010); and Vaughn v. Bowman, 209 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006); analysis test D. A trial court has discretion in its decision and may only be overturned on appeal if there is no substantial evidence to support the outcome. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976).

33