Relocation Issues in Child Custody Evaluations: A Survey of Professionals

• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12224
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Author: James N. Bow,Rebecca Ellens,Andrea Knoll,William G. Austin

RELOCATION ISSUES IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: A

SURVEY OF PROFESSIONALS

William G. Austin, James N. Bow, Andrea Knoll, and Rebecca Ellens

We report on a sample of 90 child custody evaluators in the United States, who completed an online questionnaire on their atti-

tudes and beliefs in child custody relocation cases. Findings indicated that the vast majority of participants relied on relevant

professional literature and utilized a relocation risk assessment forensic model. Participants found many risk, protective, and

specific relocation factors important, but the triad of past parental involvement, support for the other parent, and child’s age

were afforded the most importance. Participants also reported that the moving parents sought relocation for educational/voca-

tional reasons, to receive support of their extended family, or to remarry, while the nonmoving party most commonly opposed

relocation due to fears of interference/damage to the nonmoving parent–child relationship, restrictive gatekeeping, and aliena-

tion. A common trend among participants was concerns over the possible detrimental impact of any relocation on the nonmov-

ing parent–child relationship and quality of co-parenting. The vast majority of participants reported that they made specific

recommendations to the court about relocation, and the court agreed with their recommendation the overwhelming majority of

the time. We discuss Implications of the findings as well as areas needing further research.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Take a systematic approach to child custody evaluation.

Most evaluators use a forensic risk assessment approach.

A cost/benefit analysis is a valuable forensic technique.

The Relocation Risk Assessment Forensic Evaluation Model is widely used by custody evaluators.

Moving to be with extended family is not sound justification for relocating with the child.

Potential harm to the nonmoving parent–child relationship is the most important factor.

Evaluators generally make ultimate issue recommendations to the court.

Courts usually agree with evaluator recommendations.

Keywords: Child Custody Evaluation Practices; Child Custody Evaluator; Long-Distance Parenting; Parental

Gatekeeping; and Relocation.

INTRODUCTION

Child custody evaluations may be the most complex of all types of forensic mental health evalua-

tions for a variety of reasons (Bow & Quinnell, 2001). When child custody cases involve relocati on

issues, they are particularly challenging because they involve the emotionally charged issue of a par-

ent requesting to move the child a substantial geographical distance, thus creating physical and psy-

chological separation between the child and nonresidential parent. If the request is approved,

relocation requires the crafting of a long-distance parenting plan, including practical and logistical

challenges. Such cases are difficult for trial court judges who have to follow the current jurisdiction’s

law while balancing both parents’ rights to access and involvement with their children with the likeli-

hood that relocation represents the best interests for the children. Relocation cases create a challeng-

ing situation, as they do not result in a winning outcome. Such cases always drastically change a

previously established custodial arrangement and often cause strife between the parents to reemerge.

Judges thus look to custody evaluators to help them resolve the inherent dilemmas.

It is important to note that the United States is a highly mobile country. U.S. Census data and

other studies establish that divorced parents have a high rate of residential mobility, with parents of

Correspondence: wgaustinphd2@yahoo.com, drjamesbow@sbcglobal.net

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 477–486

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts