Child Custody, Visitation & Relocation

The Moving Parent Must Prove That The Child Relocation Would Not Be Inimical To The Child

In the family law, child relocation case of Ramshorst v. Cengiz, No 20-2-8210, App. Div. the plaintiff Maria Van Ramshorst appealed from the order in which the trial judge denied reconsideration of his refusal to permit the parties’ child to relocate with Van Ramshorst to the Netherlands. Van Ramshorst argued that the judge incorrectly applied the burden of proof to the parties. The appellate panel disagreed. Following the initial application, the judge found that Van Ramshorst had met her initial burden of a good faith motive for relocation. But that was not the end of the analysis. The judge then ordered a best interests evaluation and a plenary hearing was held to resolve the issues that existed regarding the proposed move. Under Baures v. Lewis, Van Ramshorst then had to prove that the relocation would not be inimical to the child. Baures sets forth a number of factors for a judge’s consideration in his analysis and the judge thoroughly discussed those factors. He ultimately concluded that Van Ramshorst had not demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that the move would not be inimical to the child. The judge correctly interpreted the law and did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion.

Reference: Case & Analysis, New Jersey Law Journal, 221 N.J.L.J. 1403 (November 2, 2015)

Filed Under: Family Law; Child Relocation

Kindly visit our Family Law & Child Relocation website for more information on this topic.