Matter of Tropea v. Tropea
Court is to determine removal by considering all evidence to determine whether proposed relocation would serve child’s best interest.
Burgess v. Burgess
Parent seeking to relocate does not have to prove that move is necessary as condition of custody if prejudgment or in order to move if after custody order is in effect.
Bowers v. Vandermeulen-Bowers
Mileage relocation restriction is measured in radial miles, not road miles.
In Re Parenting of M.C.
Constitutional right to travel is restricted by the compelling state interests of the best interests of children.
Marriage of Long v. Long
A finding that a removal is against the child’s best interests must rest on more than a determination that removal will in some way change the visitation arrangements or change the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. The court must make a finding that removal will significantly harm or impede the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent and that this harm will work to the child’s detriment.
In Re Marriage of Bohms v. Bohms
Move out of state should be decided under new law.
In Re Marriage of Kerkvliet v. Kerkvliet
Removal statute is directed to determine whether physical placement should be transferred – not whether custodial parent has right to move.
In Re Marriage of Hughes v. Hughes
Trial court properly applied §767.325 where mother brought removal action and father countered with motion to change placement. Once father filed a motion to modify placement based on circumstances other than the move, the court can consider all relevant circumstances, including but limited to the move in deciding whether to modify placement.
In Re the Paternity of Kaila K.K.-E.
The removal statute does not apply in paternity actions. (Not Published; Cannot Be Cited.)
Warner v. Warner
150 miles is measured by “ordinary routes of travel,” not “as the crow flies.” (Not Published; Cannot Be Cited.)