Home
Back to family law advice
In re LaMusga case on child custody issues when one parent wants to move away
Filed 4/29/04
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA S107355
Ct.App. 1/5 A096012
In re the Marriage of SUSAN and GARY LAMUSGA
SUSAN POSTON NAVARRO,
Appellant
v
GARY LAMUSGA
Respondent
Contra Costa County Superior Court case # D95-01136
In In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 28-29, we held that a
parent seeking to relocate after dissolution of marriage is not required to establish
that the move is “necessary” in order to be awarded physical custody of a minor
child. Similarly, a parent who has been awarded physical custody of a child under
an existing custody order also is not required to show that a proposed move is
“necessary” and instead “ ‘has the right to change the residence of the child,
subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the
rights or welfare of the child.’ (Fam. Code, § 7501.)” (Id. at p. 29.)
In the present case, the superior court ordered that primary physical custody
of two minor children would be transferred from their mother to their father if
their mother moved to Ohio. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that if the
custodial parent “has a good faith reason to move . . . the custodial parent cannot
be prevented, directly or indirectly, from exercising his or her right to change the
child’s residence” unless the noncustodial parent makes a “substantial showing”
that a change of custody is “essential” to prevent detriment to the children. We
granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeal in the present case
misapplied our holding in Burgess. We conclude that it did and reverse its
judgment.
As explained below, we conclude that just as a custodial parent does not
have to establish that a planned move is “necessary,” neither does the noncustodial
parent have to establish that a change of custody is “essential” to prevent
detriment to the children from the planned move. Rather, the noncustodial parent
bears the initial burden of showing that the proposed relocation of the children’s
residence would cause detriment to the children, requiring a reevaluation of the
children’s custody. The likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial
parent’s relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether
the move would cause detriment to the children and, when considered in light of
all of the relevant factors, may be sufficient to justify a change in custody. If the
noncustodial parent makes such an initial showing of detriment, the court must
perform the delicate and difficult task of determining whether a change in custody
is in the best interests of the children.
The father in the present case satisfied his initial burden of showing that the
mother’s planned move would cause detriment to the children, requiring a
reevaluation of the children’s custody. The superior court properly considered the
relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in deciding that a change in
primary custody from the mother to the father would be in the best interests of the
children if the mother moves to Ohio.
Text of entire decision
Top of Page
E-mail]
[Map/Directions]
[
Recommended Legal Reading]
[Family Law Info]
[
Accident Advice]
[
Helpful Links]
[
County Court List]
[Lawyer Jokes]
|