These courts have held that a hearing is required to determine if a move, which infringes on visitation rights and parental contact, is in the best interest of the parties, especially the child. We find the New York and Michigan decisions dispositive because, as in Arizona, neither state has a statute which addresses this issue. We should note that there is some disagreement among the above courts as to whether the hearings should be concerned solely with the best interest of the child or should also consider the interest of the other parties. Additionally, the court should consider sibling relationship. JS-5209 and No.
New Jersey has a statute which limits the right to remove a child from the jurisdiction.
While this test is not all inclusive, we believe it is a good starting place for the trial court. It must evaluate the integrity of the motives of the custodial parent in seeking the move in order to determine whether the removal is inspired primarily by the desire to defeat or frustrate visitation by the noncustodial parent and whether the custodial parent is likely to comply with the substitute visitation orders when she is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. It must likewise take into account the integrity of the noncustodial parent's motives in resisting the removal and consider the extent to which, if at all, the opposition is intended to secure a financial advantage in respect of continuing support obligations. Finally, the court must be satisfied that there will be a realistic opportunity for visitation in lieu of the weekly pattern which can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship with the non-custodial parent if removal is allowed. See also, Cooper v. Cooper, supra, where the court adopted a test to balance visitation rights versus the advantages of the move.