USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Valentina Shaknes and Grace Chamoun Taranto, Krauss Shaknes Tallentire & Messeri LLP
custody disputes. It mandates that states enforce each other’s custody orders and prohibits modifica - tions unless strict criteria are met. If a state modi - fies another state’s valid custody order in violation of the PKPA, the new order is unenforceable. Although the PKPA focuses on jurisdictional integrity, it shares the UCCJEA’s core commitment to co-operation and child-centered consistency. Beyond this overarching framework, individual states have enacted additional anti-relocation statutes to encourage notice, transparency, and judicial over - sight. Examples include the following. • Colorado – the party who is intending to relocate with the child to a residence that substantially changes the geographical ties between the child and the other party is required to provide the other party with written notice as soon as practicable of their intent to relocate, the location where the party intends to reside, the reason for the relocation, and a proposed revised parenting time plan (Colo Rev Stat Section 14-10-129 (2)). • Florida – a parent must obtain either written con - sent from the other parent or court approval before relocating a child more than 50 miles for more than 60 days (Fla Stat Section 61.13001). • Illinois – the relocating parent is required to provide 60 days’ notice (in most cases) and obtain court approval if the other parent does not consent, where the relocating parent is moving more than 25 miles from the child’s current primary residence in certain counties, 50 miles elsewhere in the state, or out of state (750 ILCS 5/609.2). • Pennsylvania – relocation is defined as a move that significantly impairs the ability of a non-relocating party to exercise custodial rights and the relocating parent is required to give notice at least 60 days in advance and obtain court approval if the other party objects (23 Pa Cons Stat Section 5337). • Ohio – the relocating parent is required to file a Notice of Intent to Relocate with the court that issued the custody order, thereby retaining jurisdic - tion for said court if the relocation is contested by the other parent (ORC Section 3109.051 (G)). • Georgia – a parent must give the other parent 30 days’ notice of a move and a revised address (OCGA Section 19-9-3 (f)).
• Massachusetts – a custodial parent must obtain court approval or the non-custodial parent’s con - sent to move the child out of Massachusetts or to a distant location within the state (MGL Chapter 208, Section 30). These laws advance the prevailing view that children benefit from having regular meaningful contact with both parents and, in the abstract, this is a laudable goal. Often, however, a relocation by one parent – especially when it is without the consent of the other parent – is actually a fight for safety. This is espe - cially so in cases involving domestic violence, where a child is harmed physically, emotionally or psychologi - cally. Everyone should agree that domestic violence is harmful to children and that protecting children from such harm must trump the perceived benefit a child could receive from maintaining regular in-person contact with both parents. Should the rules governing unilateral relocations not acknowledge and provide exceptions for cases of domestic violence? Need for robust legislation to protect domestic violence victims in child custody and relocation proceedings Indeed, some states already do, but much more is needed. First, all states should add domestic violence as an explicit factor to be considered in any relocation proceeding, as well as any subsequent custody litiga - tion. Second, these provisions must provide robust protections for victims of domestic violence. So, what would “robust” legislation look like? In Michigan, for instance, courts are directed to con - sider domestic violence in relocation cases, even if the violence was not witnessed by or directed at the child (MCL 722.31). California presumes that awarding custody to a parent who committed domestic violence within the past five years is detrimental to the child, placing the burden on the perpetrator to rebut this presumption (California Code, Family Code – FAM Section 3044 (a)). Although the New York legislature did not take it this far, it does mandate that domestic violence be assessed as a factor in custody deter - minations, recognising the corrosive effects of such violence on the emotional and physical health of the entire family unit (New York Domestic Relations Law Section 240 (1)(a)).
169 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook