Jane J. v. Superior Court
237 Cal. App. 4th 894 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a noncustodial parent seeks to change physical custody and move the children out-of-state, they bear the burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare. The court must also weigh whether the move would be detrimental to the child by considering factors such as the child's need for stability and continuity in their existing home, school, and community.
Facts:
- Jane J. (Mother) and Christopher J. (Father) divorced in 2009 while living in Wisconsin.
- A Wisconsin court approved their marital settlement agreement, which granted Mother 92% primary physical custody of their two sons, with Father having 8%.
- Father was an active duty military pilot whose deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and other assignments made visitation with his sons limited and difficult.
- In 2012, the Wisconsin court approved a move for Mother and the children from Wisconsin to Orange County, California.
- In December 2013, Father remarried and, after returning to the United States, relocated to Fort Rucker in Alabama.
- Following Father's relocation, the parents had serious disagreements and conflict over the children's visitation schedule.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 2014, Father registered the 2009 Wisconsin custody order in the Superior Court of Orange County, California (a trial court).
- In April 2014, Father filed a request for order (RFO) in the trial court to modify custody, seeking either primary physical custody or increased visitation.
- The trial court declined the parties' joint request to appoint a child custody evaluator.
- On February 11, 2015, following a hearing, the trial court granted Father's request, changing primary physical custody to him and ordering the children to move from California to Alabama within four days.
- Mother filed a notice of a mandatory 30-day stay of the order under state law, which the trial court recognized, preventing the immediate removal of the children.
- Mother (Petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, seeking to vacate the trial court's order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by ordering a change of physical custody from the custodial parent to the noncustodial parent, requiring an immediate out-of-state move for the children, without first determining that the noncustodial parent has met their burden of showing a substantial change of circumstances and without considering the potential detriment to the children's interests in stability and continuity?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering such a change in custody without applying the correct legal standards. The noncustodial parent seeking a custody modification that involves a move-away has the initial burden to show a substantial change of circumstances that makes the change essential for the child's welfare. The court reasoned that the trial court made several errors. First, it incorrectly concluded the 2009 Wisconsin custody order was not a final order, thereby wrongly relieving Father of his burden to prove changed circumstances. Second, the court failed to treat the case as a 'move-away' case, which requires consideration of specific factors. As the noncustodial parent proposing the move, Father had the burden to show the move would not be detrimental to the children. The trial court failed to consider the paramount importance of continuity and stability for the children, and instead acted precipitously based on perceived frustration of visitation by Mother, without weighing the disruptive impact of uprooting the children from their home, school, and community.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high legal standard a noncustodial parent must meet to obtain a change of custody that involves relocating children out of state. It clarifies that such a request is fundamentally a 'move-away' case, even when it is the noncustodial parent who lives out-of-state and seeks to have the children move to them. The case serves as a strong precedent emphasizing that a child's need for stability and continuity is a paramount concern that cannot be overlooked in favor of parental disputes. It directs trial courts to avoid hasty decisions and to conduct a thorough analysis of the move-away factors, thereby protecting children from the trauma of abrupt and ill-considered relocations.
