1) TEXT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

I. INTENT: It is the intention of the legislature to reaffirm Family Code __________ as public policy in relocation disputes.

The legislature recognizes the reality of an increasingly mobile society; the paramount need for continuity and stability of custody orders, both temporary and permanent, whether pursuant to parties' stipulation or judicial decree; and the per se detriment to children of disruption of established patterns of custody and care. The legislature also recognizes the benefit to children of ongoing contact with both parents when feasible, acknowledging that such contact may be maintained following a relocation by either parent through a variety of methods, including but not limited to physical visitation, e-mails, written mail, and telephone calls.

II. Amendments to FC 7501:

(a) same.

(b) same, and add: The Supreme Court opinion in In re Marriage of LaMusga (cite) does not comply with the intent of the legislature and is therefore abrogated in its entirety.

(c) The custodial parent has a presumptive right to change the residence of the child and does not need a court order allowing him or her to do so. A custodial parent's offer to maintain the existing amount of timeshare, although on a different schedule appropriate to the age of the child and distance of the move, shall establish that the relocation is made in good faith.

(d) The court shall not issue conditional parent seeking to the noncustodial parent based solely on a relocation or proposed relocation by the custodial parent.

(e) A noncustodial parent seeking to restrain relocation of the children or obtain custody because of the relocation has the burden of showing all of the following:

(I) that the relocation will result in a substantial change of circumstance unrelated to the move itself,

(ii) that the relocation will result in detriment to the children, and

(iii) that it is essential for the welfare of the child to change custody to the noncustodial parent.

Disruption of the noncustodial parent and child relationship due to the inability to maintain frequent and continuing contact does not satisfy the noncustodial parent's burden of proof for a change of custody or to restrain the relocation of the children by the noncustodial parent.

(f) The court shall not issue any temporary or ex parte orders of restraint on the custodial parents' right to relocate with the Children absent an evidentiary hearing and written findings of fact showing that the noncustodial parent has satisfied his or her burden of proving a substantial change of circumstance and detriment to the children by the relocation. In such finding, the court shall not consider factors related to the move itself, including but not limited to the effect of the relocation on the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent, the distance of the move, the age of the children, the child's relationship with both parents, or the relationship between the parents, including their ability to communicate and cooperate.

(g) This state shall apply to all custody orders, whether temporary or permanent, stipulated or pursuant to judicial decree.