Family Law: Parent’s Right to Travel
LAW 612 - Family Law
Arizona State University
September 13, 2025
Introduction
In the US, each state has different child custodial laws that stipulate the
requirements that have to be met by parents who wish to relocate or travel
outside their states. When solving these cases, courts have to be cautious
not to infringe on individual’s constitutional rights to travel. Similarly,
courts have to ensure that their decisions represent the best interests of
the children. According to family court judges involved in settling
relocation cases, relocation cases are the thorniest cases to adjudicate.
Other family cases such as child abuse and domestic violence have clear
guiding principles on how to settle them hence their judicial outcomes are
often apparent. In contrast, travelling and relocation cases are complex
with no clear guiding principles. As such, relocation cases usually involve
two antagonizing parents. Usually, these cases involve one parent with
sound reasons for relocation and the other with equally sound reasons for
opposing the relocation. In this view, this paper seeks to analyze the
parent’s right to travel, and outlines why travelling has been an issue for
both the parents and the courts.
Reasons for travelling
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
After divorce, parents are required by law to always remain in touch and
be in close proximity to facilitate access and support for their children.
However, this requirement is not always possible. Increase in Global
economy has seen many people increase their travelling for employment
reasons (Herring, 2004). Equally, people who wish to remarry might be
forced to travel even outside the country. Similarly, some parents might
have to travel outside the country to pursue their own personal interests.
Because of increases in travelling, potential issues concerning child
custodial cases are now becoming difficult and complicated to solve.
Traveling and the constitutional rights of parents
Prior to analyzing the factual challenges that emerge during travelling
cases, it is essential to assess the probability for traveling decisions to
contravene on the parents constitutional rights. It should be noted that
court’s decision to allow or prohibit a parent from relocating contravenes
on the parents’ constitutional rights to travel. In the USA, the courts accept
that every individual is permitted by the constitution to travel or relocate
within the country or outside the country. This probable contravention is
determined by other constitutional rights associated with relocation cases
such as parent’s basic liberty, interest in the care, guardianship, and
control of their children. In the USA, most courts recognize that a custodial
parent’s right to travel outside the country can only be infringed when
compelling state’s interests exists (Stahl & Drozd, 2006).
Based on the above constitutional right, several court decisions have been
reached in the past. For instance, if a court decides that a parent will lose
custody of his or her children because of relocating it is clear that the
affected parent’s constitutional rights would have been contravened.
Despite of this argument, some courts dispute that the above decision
does not contravene on the parents constitutional right to travel even in
instances where custody has to be surrendered. These courts assert that
the parent’s right to travel or relocate has not been infringed in the above
situation since the parent can still be free to travel. On the contrary, most
courts in the USA acknowledge that through the above court decision
parents constitutional right has been infringed (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). These
courts assert that this situation can only be tolerated when compelling
states interest to contravene on the rights exist. With the existence of
these compelling state interests, more states have come up with measures
that ensure custodial parent’s rights and the state’s interests are
considered when settling travelling and relocation issues. In the past, it has
been noted that some courts do not consider the parent’s right to travel
nor do they consider the states compelling interests when they are settling
their relocation cases. Instead, these courts consider the best interest of
the children when they are making their rulings on relocation and travelling
cases. In this regard, there have been proposals for family courts to
adjudicate their cases based on children’s best interest rather than on the
parent’s constitutional right to travel and compelling state interests.
Why relocation or travelling cases should be ruled based on the children’s
best interests
In my opinion, the above proposal should be adopted since in an event of
relocation children are the most affected rather than parents. I believe that
all family rulings should be grounded in the children’s best interests. As a
result, if the above approach should be adopted relocation or travelling
would only be permitted once the courts ascertain that the need for
relocation has been initiated by the need to improve children’s welfare.
Therefore, if courts adopt the above approach they would maximize the
opportunity for all parents to contribute to the raising, supporting, and
financing their children in their daily needs. Through this approach, the
courts will ensure that both parents work with the aim of enhancing their
children’s interests rather than on their selfish gains.
By adjudicating cases based on the children’s best interests, courts require
the travelling parent to demonstrate why his or her intended move is best
for their children. Through this, the parent will be required by the courts
to prove that the intended move has been done in good faith and never to
hurt the children or the ex-spouse. When parents divorce or separate, one
of the spouses might want to relocate far away from the ex-spouse. Such
moves are normally initiated by the need to remarry or hurt the ex-spouse
by being far away from him or her. In such instances, children will suffer
emotionally because their visitation rights would be compromised. To
prevent parents from relocating out of these motives, courts should adopt
the standard of ruling relocation cases based on the children’s best
interests. Through this, the courts would prohibit such parents from
relocating or travelling once their ill motives are established. By so doing,
the interests of the children would be safeguarded.
Through this approach, the courts would require the parent to establish
whether the place he or she plans to relocate is appropriate for the
children. By doing so, courts would ensure that children are relocated in
appropriate locations that would not harm them physically and
emotionally. Equally, through this approach courts can ascertain that both
parents have reached into a compromise. Therefore, if the courts grant a
parent permission to travel or relocate the courts would be certain that the
normal visitation rules are not compromised. Thus, if the courts adopt the
standard of adjudicating relocation cases based on children’s best interest
more damages to the children’s welfare would be avoided.
Examples of cases that have been ruled in favor of the children’s best
interests
In Virginia, family courts rule cases in favor of the children’s best interests.
This general rule has been reaffirmed during the following land rulings
Carpenter verses Carpenter case, Gray verses Gray case, Simmons verse
Simmons case, and Boisseau verses Scott case (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). In
California, California Supreme Courts LaMusga Ruling of the year 2004
have influenced current relocation cases. During Lamusga Ruling, a mother
was seeking to relocate with two of her children 2, 400 miles far away from
her ex-husband. With the father of the kids objecting the move, the mother
moved to court to seek permission for relocation.
During the child custodial analysis, the courts identified that the mother’s
relocation initiatives were going to affect the children’s relationship with
their father severely. Similarly, based on the mother’s previous conduct
the Court established that she was not enthusiastic of the father’s child
support. Even though, the mother’s request to relocate was made in good
faith, the trial courts ruled that the relocation could not be made possible,
as the move could jeopardize the relationships the children had with their
father. Equally, the court adjudicated that the children’s mother could lose
the custody of her children to their father if she pushed on with her
initiatives. Following the trial court’s ruling, the mother of the two children
appealed her case in the California Supreme Court. After careful analysis,
the courts sided with the father and ruled that if the woman was going to
be allowed to relocate, children’s best interests were going to be
compromised. Similarly, through this court ruling the Supreme Court
reversed the trial court judgment of transferring children’s custody to the
father.
Factors that courts should consider when analyzing relocation cases to
ensure to safeguard the interest of the children
In order to ensure that the children’s interests are safeguarded, the courts
should examine the children’s abilities to adjust to the new locations their
parent is planning to relocate (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Through this, the
courts should consider the degree of emotional attachments the children
have formed with both parents. The ages of the children will greatly
determine these factors. Therefore, courts should note that children below
the age of two years would not be able to cope up with being separated
especially with their mothers. Equally, the courts should note that children
need normal development stages that can be enhanced through regular
visits by the non-custodian parents. As such, when administering their
judgments courts should note that if a child is deprived the contact with
both parents by allowing one of non-custodial parent to relocate far away
from the child, the child’s right to develop secure contact with both parents
is contravened. According to the sociologists, grown up children can easily
maintain a healthy relationship with their absent parents unlike younger
children. Therefore, the age of the child should be considered critically by
the courts before they administer their judgments on family relocation
cases.
Another factor that should be considered by courts when deciding on
relocation cases is the relationship the children have with their parents
(Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, through the above-proposed approach
fears of children losing existing relationship with their parents when they
travel can be reduced. The fears will be reduced because the courts are
going to require the relocating parent to not only prove that his or her
motives are geared towards enhancing the child’s interest, but also prove
that the existing relationship between the children and both parents would
not be compromised. Thus, the courts should ensure that their judgments
are ruled in consideration of children’s relationships with their parents.
Alternatively, the quality of the children’s communication and cooperation
with their parents should be considered by the family courts. For instance,
if courts establish that a parent has been violating some visitation rules he
or she has no need to be given permission to relocate (Stahl & Drozd,
2006). If given the permission, such individuals would continue with his or
her violations and may damage the existing relationship with the kids
severely. Given that relocation may incur some great challenges to the
wellbeing of the children and the spouse left behind, courts should
consider asking the parents to attend mandatory family counseling
sessions before their cases is fully settled.
Usually, parents may relocate or travel to other countries through court
order or upon the agreement of both parents. Before a parent travels
outside the country, he or she should take time to analyze the parent
parenting plan or child custodial ruling of their jurisdiction. Some states
require parents to give notice of their travelling. In this regard, the
travelling parent should produce a notice within the given period. Failure
to comply with this may jeopardize travelling request. Equally, before
processing travelling requests, a parent should analyze child custodial laws
applicable in their states. In the USA, each state has distinctive child
custodial laws (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). For instance, some states require
written consent from both parents before warranting a parent to travel
outside the country. Therefore, parents are advised to seek counsel from
family lawyers before proceeding with their travel processing. Notably,
when resolving cases involving the parent’s rights to travel courts lay
emphasize on the impacts the travelling will have on children. As such, for
travelling to be warranted travelling initiatives should prove that they are
aimed at improving the children’s welfare (Standley, 2001). Benefits of
increased opportunities and pays associated with international relocation
should not outweigh the child’s best interests. Based on the above analysis,
it is apparent that courts consider the significance of the financial,
economic, child’s interests, and other family reasons when solving cases
that involve parents’ rights to travel.
When a parent wants to travel outside the country with the children, the
courts require that he or she seek permission from the other parent (Stahl
& Drozd, 2006). When the other parent refuses to grant permission, he or
she is required to seek the court’s permission. In case a parent fails to seek
the other parent’s permission or the court permission, he or she will be
liable to abduction charges (Youngman, 2012). Therefore, the travelling
parents must be willing to produce authentic documents authorizing their
travels whenever requested for by the immigration officers. Usually,
custodial parents who are planning to travel outside the country are
advised to seek the advice from the judges who ruled their custodial basis
to prevent reprisal from the ex-spouses.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is apparent that solving relocation cases from
the children’s best interest perspective is more appropriate than any other
perspective. Proponents argue that solving these cases from this
perspective will preserve the relationships that exist between the parents
and their children (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). According to them, if the family
courts adjudicate these cases with the aim of safeguarding the children’s
interests, the need for regular visitation will militate against relocation. On
the other hand, critics argue that with the adoption of this standard
relocation will be limited. According to them, such initiatives will
contravene the parent’s constitutional right to travel. Therefore, it is
apparent that with the existing polarized positions courts and other
relevant stakeholders should carry out comprehensive research to ease
the situation. For the family judges to come up with sound rulings, they are
supposed to be provided with concrete researches on the impacts of
relocation on children. Through this, they can determine accurately the
aspects of children’s best interests. In this respect, it will be crucial for
judges and legislators to analyze social sciences researches regarding the
roles parents play in family institutions. During these examinations, they
should analyze difficult situations that often arise when relocations are
necessitated. Similarly, they must identify complex provisions that have to
be put in place in such situations. In my opinion, a movement from the
usual approaches to one that emphasizes on the children’s best interests
is ideal. Above all, all rulings should weigh the risks that will come up when
relocation is allowed or rejected.
In conclusion, it is apparent that in the future courts are going to be faced
with more challenging travelling and relocation cases as the need for
travelling increases (Stahl & Drozd, 2006). Therefore, courts should
formulate appropriate standards that will ensure that parent’s rights to
travel are not infringed and children’s custodial rights are safeguarded.
These standards can only be met if the courts make sound decisions that
are aimed at protecting children’s best interests. Similarly, parents should
only be allowed to travel outside the country when they have obtained
permission from their ex-spouses and courts.
References
Cretney, S. M. (2000). Family law (4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Herring, J. (2004). Family law (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson
Longman.
Stahl, P. M., & Drozd, L. (2006). Relocation issues in child custodial cases.
New York: Haworth Press.
Standley, K. (2001). Family law (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Youngman, A. (2012). International parental child abduction (9th ed.).
Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs.
