LegalZoom provides Terms of Use. There are two issues that often result in disputes between parents with joint legal custody: moves out of state with the child(ren) and changes in schools. If you plan on moving out of state or if your child's other parent is planning to move, it's recommended that you talk to a family lawyer to make sure you protect your parental rights. If so, then the second stage determines whether the move would change the established custodial environment for the child. The test adopted in Overall was initially set forth in D’Onofrio v D’Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super 200, 206-07, 365 A2d 27 (1976), and ultimately called the “D’Onofrio test.” Under the D’Onofrio test, the trial court was required to consider: (1) whether the prospective move has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the custodial parent and the child; (2) whether the move is inspired by the custodial parent's desire to defeat or frustrate visitation by the noncustodial parent and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with the substitute visitation orders where he or she is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state; (3) the extent to which the noncustodial parent, in resisting the move, is motivated by the desire to secure a financial advantage in respect of a continuing support obligation; and. If the amended arrangement is in the child's best interests, the judge will likely approve the agreement and enter a new custody order providing for the out-of-state arrangement. The court may also pursue alternative methods as part of a new custody arrangement, such as incorporating “virtual visitation," or electronic communication, between the out-of-state parent and child. Where the decision would result in a change in the established custodial environment, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that this consequent change in the environment serves the child’s best interest. The court may also pursue alternative methods as part of a new custody arrangement, such as incorporating “virtual visitation," or electronic communication, between the out-of-state parent and child. It may be impossible to continue “shared parenting” in any meaningful way if one parent moves far away from the other parent. Normally, if a court is asked repeatedly to resolve parenting disputes, the court should wonder at some point whether the award of joint legal custody is practical and/or serves the child’s best interest. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. The next issue then involved whether the child’s “best interest” under MCLA 722.23 should have been considered in the initial decision to permit the mother to move out of state. 235, 240, 661 N.W.2d 243 (2003). If it can be accomplished, then courts will always favor custody orders that allow both parents to maintain frequent and continuing contact with the children, as this generally benefits the children. However, once the trial court granted defendant permission to remove the minor child from the state, and it became clear that defendant's proposed parenting time schedule would effectively result in a change in the child's established custodial environment with both parties, it should have engaged in an analysis of the best interest factors, MCL 722.23, to determine whether defendant could prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the removal and consequent change in established custodial environment and parenting time was in the child's best interest. Finally, just as the trial court in Brown v Loveman was required to consider whether the move out of state would change the established custodial environment (after the move standing alone was considered)—the Court of Appeals in the Pierron case did likewise. We cannot provide any kind of advice, This too will be a determination made on the basis of the facts of each case, with the relevance of the facts presented being gauged by the statutory best interest factors. at 513. Again, not just any change will suffice, for over time there will always be some changes in a child's environment, behavior, and well-being. The father was served that same day, and on November 4, 2002, the court ordered DNA testing. It considered the change-of-schools request and…then…considered whether the change in schools would change the established custodial environment. A party can move anywhere he/she wants after a judgment or order is entered if he/she proposes to move without changing the children’s residence—i.e., leaving the children behind . If the out-of-state parent wants to modify custody (or adjust child support), he or she will have to file the action in Texas. An out-of-state custody agreement generally grants one parent sole physical custody and the other parent visitation rights. This means that the state that makes the decisions about where the child will live is the child’s home state. Thus, we find that the Legislature intended that a parent who shares joint legal or physical custody may petition the court to relocate a minor. The content is not legal advice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in Dehring v Dehring, 220 Mich App 163 (1997), holding as follows: Former husband petitioned for physical custody of children, which had been awarded to former wife upon parties' divorce. Prior to the adoption of MCLA 722.31, Michigan had applied the 4-factor test forth in Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 458, 512 N.W.2d 851 (1994). View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm, In regards to Covid-19,  We are reviewing the best guidelines for our city and state for how. (c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification. If the Papers Require Permission. There is no authority for the proposition that the parent seeking to relocate the minor child must have sole physical custody. With moves out of state, however, there can be a change in the established custodial environment.