One of the most contested post-dissolution issues courts face is the relocation of a parent having custody of the children. As people become less tied to a specific community, and generally more willing to relocate, more divorced parents face the loss of regular contact with their children due to a relocation.
This is hard on the children and the parents, but the courts have to balance this loss with the need for the custodial parent to be free to move. Indiana recently revised its relocation statute (IC 31-17-2-8) to require that specific notice of the intention of either parent to relocate their residence be given in a particular form and with particular details to the other parent. The new provision also establishes a standard that the moving parent must meet to be permitted to relocate the children.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reviewed a case under the revised statute: Gerry Ray Rogers v. Laura Lynn Rogers . The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to permit the mother to relocate the children to Texas. I bring this case up to highlight the dissent filed by Justice James S. Kirsch. I think the dissent shows how hard these issues are:
How can depriving children of the presence of their loving and caring father in their daily lives be in their best interests? My colleagues conclude that Father failed to carry his burden that Mother’s relocation to Texas was not in the best interests of his children without raising or answering this question. To me, it is of paramount importance. These children’s father will not be there to attend their birthday parties, school functions, recitals, concerts, science fairs, athletic contests, and extracurricular events. Their father will not be there for parent-teacher conferences. Their father will not be there to take them to school in the morning or to pick them up in the afternoon. Their father will not be there for their doctor and dentist appointments. Their father will not know their teachers, and he will not know their friends. Their father will not be there as they move into and through adolescence with all of its attendant challenges. The choice before the trial court and here is not a custody determination between parents who live in different places. Mother said she would not move if the trial court denied it. Rather, the choice is between whether the children should live in the same community as both of their parents or should live with one parent several hundred miles away from their other parent. To me, the better choice is obvious.
