Opinion ID: 2270548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: relocation by primary residential custodian

Text: Although, [n]ationally, relocation of a custodial parent is a difficult and divisive issue[,] [72] the relocation issue, at least in the context of sole custody, has been addressed and settled in Kentucky for more than a decade. In Wilson v. Messinger , [73] the mother was awarded sole custody of the parties' child and the father was granted visitation. Because both of the child's parents resided in the Raceland, Kentucky area, the child continued to maintain close contact with both parents. Later, however, the mother proposed a move to West Virginia with the child, and both the child and her father objected to the proposed relocation. The father asked the trial court to modify its prior decree by designating him as the child's custodian, and he produced evidence of a certified social worker's assertions that the child suffered signs of stress attributable to the pending relocation of her custodial parent. At that time, KRS 403.340(2) read as follows: If a court of this state has jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the court shall not modify a prior custody decree unless it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior decree, that a change has occurred in circumstances of the child or his custodian, and that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. In applying these standards, the court shall retain the custodian appointed pursuant to the prior decree unless: (a) The custodian agrees to the modification; (b) The child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with the consent of the custodian; (c) The child's present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages to him. [74] The trial court denied the father's modification motion after finding that the case did not come within the ambit of either subsections (a) or (b), and that the father failed to meet the burden of proof required by subsection (c). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, and, on discretionary review, we affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. We observed that the Court of Appeals had cited Quisenberry v. Quisenberry [75] for the principle that KRS 403.340(2) intend[ed] to inhibit further litigation initiated simply because the noncustodial parent, or the child, or both, believe that a change in custody would be in the child's best interest. [76] We also referenced, approvingly, the Court of Appeals's statement that, a custodial parent cannot, in today's mobile society, be forced to remain in one location in order to retain custody. [77] Like the trial court, we held that the father had failed to meet the burden imposed on him under KRS 403.340(2)(c) for he has not proven the likelihood of harm to the child if custody is not modified, [78] and we held that the record fails to establish that the child's present environment endangers seriously [the child's] physical, mental, or emotional health. [79] In relocation cases decided prior to the enactment of KRS 403.340, custodial mothers were allowed to relocate with the parties' child or children (1) because of their remarriage to men who worked outside of Kentucky, [80] or (2) they offer[ed] some plausible reason. [81] Remarriage itself was viewed as a compelling reason to relocate to the new husband's residence. [82] These earlier cases placed the burden on the relocating custodial parent to justify the move. However, after Wilson and the enactment of KRS 403.340, a custodial parent's decision to relocate with the children is presumptively permissible, and a custodial parent may relocate with the children without prior approval or modification of the joint custody award: ... [A] custodial parentwhether joint or soleis not required to seek court approval prior to moving to another location. If one party opposes the move, then the issue becomes whether the joint custody decree can be modified. [83] Although the relocation will, as a practical matter, impact a non-primary residential custodian's ability to share physical custody of the children, the relocation does not extinguish the non-primary residential custodial parent's rights with regard to shared physical custody, nor would the relocation affect the essential nature of the joint custody i.e., the parents' shared decision-making authority. Thus, a non-primary residential custodian parent who objects to the relocation can only prevent the relocation by being named the sole or primary residential custodian, and to accomplish this re-designation would require a modification of the prior custody award. He or she must therefore show that [t]he child's present environment endangers seriously his physical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advantages[.] [84] Admittedly, Wilson addressed relocation only in the context of sole custody. However, the Court of Appeals's en banc decision in Scheer addressed relocation in the context of joint custody. Although Wilson was not cited, the Scheer Courtlike the Wilson Courtheld that a request to modify custody because of a proposed relocation by the parent designated by the trial court as the primary caretaker came within the purview of the general custody modification statute, KRS 403.340, and therefore, the objecting party was required to meet the more difficult standard thereunder. We agree. To sum up, when a primary residential custodian gives notice of his or her intent to relocate with the parties' child, the burden is then upon any party objecting to file a custody modification motion within a reasonable time and after that, to satisfy the modification standard of KRS 403.340 in order to change the designation of primary residential custodian. If no motion is filed within a reasonable time, the primary residential custodian may relocate with the parties' child.