Relocation With a Six-Year-Old
Mei has primary care of her daughter Ava, age 6. Under the current order, Ava lives with Mei and spends alternate weekends and one midweek evening with her father, Tom. Mei has been offered a job 900 km away paying $22,000 more per year, starting in three months. She wants to move with Ava. Tom opposes the move and seeks shared parenting. Ava is settled in school, has a close relationship with both parents, and sees her maternal grandparents weekly. Mei says the move is necessary for her career and housing affordability; Tom says it would effectively end his relationship with Ava. There is no history of violence. The jurisdiction applies the best-interests-of-the-child test and requires notice of intended relocation.
1. What legal framework applies to Mei's proposed relocation?
Read the worked answer
Mei must give formal notice of the intended move. The court will decide whether relocation is in Ava's best interests, not simply whether Mei has a good reason to move. The analysis typically weighs: the child's relationship with each parent; the practical effect of distance on Tom's parenting time; Ava's stability at school and in the community; Mei's reasons for moving and whether they are bona fide; and the feasibility of maintaining Tom's relationship through travel and extended visits. The burden generally rests on the relocating parent to show the move serves the child's best interests, though the framing varies by jurisdiction. Mei's higher salary and cheaper housing are legitimate considerations, but they are not decisive on their own; the court asks how the move affects Ava, not only how it benefits Mei.
2. How should the court weigh Ava's relationship with Tom against Mei's career opportunity?
Read the worked answer
The court would start from Ava's existing care arrangement and ask what the move would do to it. Alternate-weekend and midweek contact would become impractical at 900 km, so the move would substantially reduce Tom's involvement unless replaced with longer holiday blocks and frequent video contact. Ava is six, settled in school, and close to her grandparents, so stability and continuity weigh against relocation. Against that, Mei's improved income and housing could improve Ava's day-to-day life, and courts do not require a parent to forgo a reasonable opportunity. The likely outcome is a fact-specific inquiry: if Tom has been consistently involved and can share care, the court may refuse relocation or permit it only with a robust contact plan and cost-sharing. If Mei can show the move materially improves Ava's circumstances and that Tom's relationship can be preserved, relocation may be allowed.
3. What conditions or safeguards might the court impose if it permits the move?
Read the worked answer
The court might require a detailed parenting plan: extended summer and holiday time with Tom, a defined schedule for video calls, and a mechanism for sharing school and medical information. It could allocate travel costs between the parties, given the income difference, and require Mei to give notice of any further move. The court might also order a review after a set period, or make the order conditional on Mei securing the job and housing. Tom's shared-parenting claim would not disappear; the order would need to preserve meaningful contact, and a court would be alert to any attempt to marginalize him. If the move is refused, the court may still adjust the schedule to strengthen Tom's role.