In re Marriage of Brown and Yana, (CA Supreme Court) 2006 DJDAR 1419

Where noncustodial parent fails to demonstrate planned move would be detrimental to child, court is not obligated to conduct evidentiary hearing.

In this case, parent who had been awarded sole legal and physical custody of a child after a contested custody dispute sought to relocate with child to Nevada due to employment opportunity for new spouse. The noncustodial parent opposed the relocation and sought to have the matter addressed in an evidentiary hearing (ie: a contested hearing with live testimony).

California Supreme Court found that there is no distinction on the issue of relocation between a parent who has sole legal and physical custody and a parent who has joint custody. In either case, noncustodial parent is entitled to seek modification of the custody based on relocation. However, modification based on relocation, like other requests for modification, is appropriate "only if the parent seeking modification demonstrates 'a significant change of circumstances' indicating that a different custody arrangement would be in the child's best interest." A full evidentiary hearing is not required where there is no prima facie showing that the move would be detrimental to child. Unsupported statements by noncustodial parent that Nevada generally had worse schools and more crime were not sufficient. Court also indicates that hearing would be appropriate if move was being made in bad faith, ie: solely to keep child from noncustodial parent.