My daughter said someone told her if she got a good job out of state and one that she could support her 2 kids with, she can take them kids out of state against her husbands wishes..............Is this true????????? And if you answer yes, where did you get that info.........????? I hear so many things that aren't true, I ask now, where the source of info comes from...............

To my knowledge she cannot if it intereferes in parenting time.A judge won't allow it if her H were to go to court.This is for my state at least.Assuming they are D'd that is.

O

Are they divorced already?

Is there a divorce petition pending?

Is this any kind of affair situation?

What state is she leaving and what state is she going to (i.e.-is she going to Florida or trying to leave Florida)???

Mr. Wondering

It depends on the state but in my state, a judge would look at the best interest of the child, which CAN include better parental employment or being near extended family. If the job results in a far higher standard of living for the child then, yes, she might have a good case. If the motivation is simply to deny the father visitation, then no.

This is part of the case law in considering whether the custodial parent can move. I think it boils down to what is best for the children and if something can be worked out to maintain a relationship with the non-custodial parent.

In 1993, the Florida Supreme Court expressed a general policy favoring relocation by the custodial parent. In Mize v. Mize, 621 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1993), the mother, who had primary physical custody, sought permission to move to California with the parties' daughter. The father opposed the motion. Acknowledging that relocation cases do not lend themselves to bright-line rules, the supreme court adopted a general policy favoring relocation so long as the custodian has a well- intentioned reason and is not motivated by a vindictive desire to interfere with the other parent's custodial rights. The court then set forth six factors for consideration in each case:

Whether the move would be likely to improve the general quality of life for both the primary physical custodian and the children.
Whether the motive for seeking the move is for the express purpose of defeating visitation.

Whether the custodial parent, once out of the jurisdiction, will be likely to comply with any substitute visitation arrangements.

Whether the substitute visitation wil be adequate to foster a continuing meaningful relationship between the children and the noncustodial parent.

Whether the cost of transportation is financially affordable by one or both of the parents.

Whether the move is in the best interests of the child.
(This sixth requirement we believe is a generalized summary of the previous five).


Id. at 420 (adopting the holding in Hill v. Hill, 548 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989), review denied, 560 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1990)).
Mize was recently clarified by the Florida Supreme Court in Russenberger v. Russenberger, 669 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1996), another case in which a mother with primary physical custody sought to move out of state. The court held that upon a demonstration of good faith by the parent seeking to relocate, a presumption arises that relocation should be permitted. The presumption is rebuttable, however, and in considering whether the presumption is rebutted, the court must weigh the factors set forth in Mize.