Minor Children - Change of Domicile

Procedural

1. An order or judgment concerning custody of a minor child must contain a provision that the child shall not be removed from the State of Michigan without the approval of the judge who awarded custody or the judge’s successor. MCR 3.211(C).
2. An order to permit a removal from the State of Michigan is required before a move can occur. The order may be entered either by consent or by the court after hearing.
3. Parties who are in pro per who agree to a removal from the state may obtain a form consent order from the Friend of the Court office.

Case Law

1. Dick v Dick, 147 Mich App 513, (1985) summarizes the standards for deciding removal petitions, employing the test from the New Jersey case of D'Onofrio v D'Onofrio.
2. Under D'Onofrio v D'Onofrio, 144 NJ Super 200, 206-207, 365 A2d 27 (1976), aff'd, 144 NJ Super 352, 365 A2d 716 (1976) the trial court must consider:
   1. Prospective advantages of the move for improvement of general quality of life for custodial parent and child(ren).
   2. Integrity of the motives of the custodial parent in seeking to remove in order to determine whether the move is inspired primarily by a desire to frustrate the parental relationship of the non-custodial parent.
   3. Is the custodial parent likely to comply with this state's parenting provisions once s/he is no longer in the state?
   4. Integrity of the non-custodial parent in opposing the move. For example, consider extent to which opposition is motivated by desire to achieve financial advantage.
   5. Will there be a realistic opportunity for parenting time in lieu of the weekly pattern which can foster an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the non-custodial parent and child(ren) if removal is allowed?

References

1. American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (1 997). "Proposed Model Relocation Act."
2. Ass'n of Family and Conciliation Courts (1996). Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34,4. The entire issue of this journal is devoted to move away issues and contains the opinions In Re Marriage of Burgess,13 Cal 4^th 25, 913 P 2d 473 (1996) (the lead case for freer "move away" criteria for primary custodians), and Tropea v. Tropea, 665 NE 2d 145 (N.Y. 1996), as well as a relevant Canadian opinion.
3. Bruch, C.S. & Bowermaster, J.M. (1996). The relocation of children and custodial parents: public policy, past and present. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 2.
4. Wallerstein, J.S. & Tanke, T.J. (1996). To move or not to move: Psycholegal considerations in the relocation of children following divorce. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 2. (Note: Author suggests that when a child is in the primary residential custody of one parent, that parent should be able to relocate except in unusual circumstances. However, when there is a true joint physical custody situation, the parent seeking to move should bear the burden of showing that the move is in the child's best interests.)
5. Weissman, H.N. (1994) Psychotherapeutic and psycholegal considerations: when a custodial parent seeks to move away. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 2.
6. LaFrance, A.B. (1995-1996). Child custody and relocation: a constitutional perspective. Univ. of Louisville Journal of Family Law, 34, 1.