When a parent desires to relocate, whether across the state or across the country, it can raise difficult issues for the children and the parenting schedule. This video highlights the standard for relocation set forth in NH RSA 461-A:12 and the issues encountered in petitioning for or defending against a request to relocate.
Address notification requirements and domestic violence restraining orders: How to comply with conflicting orders
Do I still have to notify the other parent about moving pursuant to the relocation statute if there is a domestic violence restraining order and my address is confidential?
The statute states that the notice requirement applies in all parenting rights and responsibilities cases unless specifically addressed otherwise in the parties’ existing order or agreement. If there is a court order stating that you do not have to comply with the relocation law, then no notice is needed. Similarly, if the move results in your moving closer to the other parent and there is no change in school placement, then no notice is needed pursuant to the relcoation statute. You may, however, need to provide notice of your address change pursuant to provisions in the court order requiring parents to keep each other updated on address and contact information.
If you are required to provide notice of the address change, then you must comply and provide notice of the move to the other parent. If you are concerned about releasing your address, the best approach would be to provide notice of the move by providing the town or city location only, and not the street address, and file a motion with the court to seek permission not to disclose the full address. Presumably, the other parent has the right to know what schools the children are attending, so the information about the town or city will most likely need to be disclosed.
Remember, this is a basic answer to a basic question. Each family matter is unique, and has a specific set of facts which might change the above answer. In order to make sure that you arein compliance with court orders and New Hampshire law, you should seek advice from an attorney who is able to review your situation with you.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently issued an opinion In the Matter of Patricia Martin and Michael Martin on the issues of relocation and language in the parenting plan requiring either party to seek neutral third party assistance in resolving disputes prior to filing with the court.
Neutral Third Party Requirement
The court form standard parenting plans include language under the “methods for resolving disputes” paragraph that require parents to seek assistance in resolving disputes before heading to court. Specifically, the standard language reads:
In the future, if the parents have a disagreement about parenting issues, the parents shall try to work it out in the best interest of the child(ren). If the parents are unable to work out the disagreement, they shall seek the help of a neutral third party to assist them. Only if the parents are unable to work out the disagreement after seeking third party assistance will they ask the court to decide the issue.
On appeal, the mother argued that the court use of the word “shall” interferes with the parties’ rights to access the courts to resolve disputes. The court disagreed and stated that while the New Hampshire Constitution “provides that all citizens have a right to the redress of their actionable injuries … the article does not prohibit all impairments of the right of access to the courts.” In fact, reasonable restrictions for the filing of lawsuits do not automatically violate the constitutional guarantee to speedy justice.
The court reasoned that the third party assistance provision did not impinge on the mother’s rights because, as the court stated: “It imposes no specific requirement that the assistance of a neutral third party must be of any particular nature or duration or even that the third party must have actually provided assistance. It permits either party to seek judicial relief, as long as that party demonstrates that the parents first sought the assistance of a neutral third party.”
In practice, the discussion in the Martin case is something to keep in mind when entering into a parenting plan. If you do not want to restrict yourself or the other parent in such a way, you need to find alternative language to agree upon or persuade the court to order. Also, if you all ready have this language in your parenting plan, you are required to seek out some manner of neutral third party assistance to try to resolve the dispute before you may file. If you do not, your petition may be dissmissed until you comply with the requirement.
Relocation is a hot topic these days. Families, often for jobs, are on the move. New Hampshire law provides that a parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose and that the proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose. Should the moving party meet that burden, the other parent must prove that the proposed relocation is not in the best interests of the children. The trial court had denied the mother’s request to relocate, finding that the mother’s purpose for moving was to
avoid ongoing interaction with the father and to “get away from [him].”
On appeal the mother argued that the statutory term “legitimate” means she only need demonstrate a “subjectively legitimate reason” for relocating and that the proposed relocation must only be objectively reasonable in light of that purpose. The court never answered whether this proposed interpretation of the statutory word “legitimate” was proper because the mother’s argument failed even under her own proposed interpretation. Even if the court accepted the mother’s definition of “legitimate” as a subjective determination, upon the facts of the case, she could not prevail because the trial court had found that the move was not a legitimate purpose, a legal conclusion that she did not challenge.
What does this mean? The court left the discussion of the meaning of a legitimate purpose for another day.
Q: I have primary residential responsibility for my children, and I want to move out of state with them, what do I need to do to move?
A: The relocation statute (NH RSA 461-A:12) requires that the relocating parent shall provide reasonable notice to the other parent of the move. While “reasonable notice” may vary depending on special factors present in your case, in most cases 60 days is presumed reasonable notice. This notice requirement applies in all parenting rights and responsibilities cases unless specifically addressed otherwise in the parties’ existing order or agreement. However, it does not apply when the relocation will move the parent and children closer to the other parent or within the same school district.
If the non-relocating parent objects, the court will hold a hearing on the matter at the request of either parent. Often, the court will appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate the issues and make a recommendation to the court regarding the relocation.
In order for the relocating parent’s request to be approved, that parent must show that their relocation is for a legitimate purpose and that the proposed relocation is reasonable in light of that purpose. In other words, if the relocating parent is moving to be near her family that lives in Florida, the proposed move should be to Florida and not North Dakota. A legitimate purpose may be for a variety of different reasons, including economic opportunities such as employment or the ability to be self-supportive, to be close to a support network of friends and family, or for an educational opportunity for the parent or children.
If the relocating parent proves, by a preponderance of the evidence (more probable than not), that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, then the burden shifts to the non-relocating parent who must show the court that the proposed relocating is not in the best interests of the children. Even if the relocating parent has a legitimate purpose, and is not moving for nefarious purposes such as interfering in the other parent’s relationship with the children, the court may find that it is not in the children’s best interests and deny to relocation.
· Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move;
· The quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents;
· The impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent;
· The degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move;
· The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements;
· Any negative impact from continued or exacerbated hostility between the custodial and noncustodial parents; and
· The effect that the move may have on any extended family relations.
No single factor is presumed to be dispositive, and the court may consider additional factors as the case demands.