Comment on Parkinson and Cashmore's (2015) Research and Proposal for Reforming Child Custody Relocation Law: Child Custody Evaluator and Psychological Perspecitve

• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12247

REIGNITING THE RELOCATION DEBATE: FURTHER COMMENTS

COMMENT ON PARKINSON AND CASHMORE’S (2015) RESEARCH

AND PROPOSAL FOR REFORMING CHILD CUSTODY RELOCATION

LAW: CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR AND

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECITVE

William G. Austin

Parkinson and Cashmore (2015) described their innovative, qualitative, and longitudinal research program on the experience

of Australian families involved in relocation family law litigation. This constructive comment discusses the value and limita-

tions of their main findings. Parkinson and Cashmore’s approach is contrasted with the excellent quantitative research on the

effects of residential mobility on children of divorce. The author disagrees with Parkinson and Cashmore’s position of oppos-

ing the use of relocation factors in statute and/or case law so as to not hinder the exercise of judicial discretion any further, but

agrees with their integration of the least detrimental alternative concept into a relocation analysis.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Practitioners will benefit from knowing the qualitative research by Parkinson and Cashmore for generating hypotheses

about families’ experience with relocation.

The concept of least detrimental alternative will be a useful lens for resolving relocation disputes.

The relocation risk assessment forensic model will a useful first step for evaluators in taking a systematic approach to a

relocation analysis.

Best interests and relocation statutory factors provide structure and rationality to a relocation analysis for both court

and evaluators.

Parkinson and Cashmore research provide insights on the practical analysis on whether relocation should occur and

how to implement a long distance parenting plan.

Implementing a long distance parenting plan requires an evaluator and the court to take a risk management approach to

protecting the child and distant parent relationship.

Keywords: Child Custody Evaluation; Factorial Analysis; Least Detrimental Alternative; Relocation; Risk Assessment;

and Risk Management.

OVERVIEW

I welcome the opportunity to comment andreflect on the scholarly work of my esteemed colleagues,

Professor Patrick Parkinson and Dr. Judy Cashmore, and their article that appeared in the Family Court

Review (2015). Based on their innovative, longitudinal research on families that have been involved in

real-life child custody relocation litigation, Parkinson and Cashmore make policy recommendations for

the formulation of relocation law with the ostensible goal of achieving a uniform consensus and simpli-

fied approach in various Western countries. Parkinson and Cashmore argue for a more parsimonious

approach that would limit the number of factors to be considered by the court (and presumably child

custody evaluators). They recommendagainst a “checklist of relocation factors” in favor of onlyapply-

ing the best interests factors of the jurisdiction. They discourage countries and legal jurisdictions from

establishing “special provisions” or relocation statutes. Their concern is that a requirement to consider

Correspondence: wgaustinphd2@yahoo.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 4, October 2016 620–631

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts