With joint custody can you move 400 miles?

In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) Case Name: Perreault v. Sullivan The court found that after mom moved , 400 milers away, her improved housing did not have the capacity to benefit the parties' child and her motion to change domicile was denied. The court found that dads parenting time was disrupted by the move. The parties had joint legal custody and mom needed the courts permission to move.
A parent with joint legal custody who seeks to relocate more than 100 miles away must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a change in the minor’s domicile is warranted.
In considering a proposed change of a child’s domicile after a divorce, a
court must consider the D’Onofrio1 factors, which are codified at MCL 722.31(4), and provide
that a court must address the following:
(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the
quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.
(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized
his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and
whether the parent’s plan to change the child’s legal residence is inspired by that
parent’s desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.
©) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits
the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting
time schedule and other arrangements governing the child’s schedule in a manner
that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental
relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely
to comply with the modification.
(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change
is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support
obligation.
(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed
against or witnessed by the child.
After reviewing the record in this case, we find that the circuit court considered each
factor mandated by MCL 722.31(4).
The parties were granted joint legal and physical custody of the child in their consent divorce judgment. The child primarily resided with plaintiff. The defendant-father had parenting time on alternate weekends from Thursday to Monday morning, and two nights a week when he did not have weekend parenting time. He availed himself of almost 100 percent of his parenting time. Plaintiff and the child made the move in August 2007 to a city 400 miles away in the LP, prior to the October 2007 evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff testified at the hearing she earned $4 an hour plus tips while employed in the UP, and earned $10 an hour at her new employment. She also described her new residence, with a separate bedroom and a full connected bathroom for the child, as "better than what we were living in up there." In its written opinion denying plaintiff's motion, the trial court explained despite the higher paying job and better housing, it was not convinced the change of legal residence had the capacity to improve the child's quality of life. While the move did not appear inspired by any obvious desire by plaintiff to defeat the parenting time schedule, it frustrated defendant's ability to exercise his parenting time pursuant to the current schedule. The record showed the child had no family in the new locale other than plaintiff, but a large extended family existed in the UP community where they resided until the move. While the court might have decided plaintiff's higher wages had the capacity to elevate the quality of the child's life, it was a close question and the trial court's finding was not against the great weight of the evidence.
If you have questions about your rights in Family Court, divorce, custody, support or parenting time please call. If you read this article there will be no charge for the initial consultation. Call Terry Bankert 235-1970