GLASTONBURY, CONNECTICUT · FAMILY LAW + FAMILY-VIOLENCE DEFENSE
Relocation cases are among the hardest in family court, because there is rarely a result that works for everyone. One parent has a reason to move that is often entirely legitimate. The other parent stands to see their children far less.
The first question is not whether the move is reasonable. It is when you are asking.
Where there is already a custody order and the proposed move would significantly affect the existing parenting plan, the relocating parent carries the entire burden of proving three things by a preponderance of the evidence:
The other parent does not have to prove anything. That allocation is statutory, and it makes post-judgment relocation a genuinely uphill matter for the parent who wants to move.
If your divorce or custody case is still pending, §46b-56d does not apply. A relocation dispute arising before judgment is decided under the ordinary best-interests standard of §46b-56, and neither parent carries that special burden.
This distinction is frequently blurred in online summaries, and it changes how a case should be positioned. It can also affect timing decisions in a pending case.
Legitimate purpose usually means a concrete reason — a job, a remarriage, proximity to family support, a significant improvement in circumstances. A move motivated by distancing the children from the other parent is the opposite of legitimate, and courts are alert to it.
Reasonableness connects the purpose to the destination. A job in Boston explains a move to Massachusetts; it does not explain a move to Arizona.
Best interests is where most cases are decided, and the strongest relocation proposals come with a realistic plan for preserving the relationship with the other parent — extended summers, school vacations, travel costs allocated, regular contact that is actually workable across the distance.
You do not carry the burden, but that is not the same as doing nothing. What matters is evidence about your involvement in the children’s daily lives, what the move would cost that relationship, and whether the proposed arrangements are realistic or aspirational.
The automatic orders in a pending divorce already prohibit permanently removing a child from Connecticut without written agreement or a court order. After judgment, the existing order controls.
Moving first and asking later is the single worst approach available. It can be treated as custodial interference, and it puts you in front of a judge having already demonstrated willingness to act unilaterally.
When a parenting-time dispute becomes a criminal charge. Connecticut custodial interference under §§53a-97 and 53a-98, and what to do if you are charged.
Read more
How to change a Connecticut custody, child support, or alimony order after judgment — the substantial change standard, and why filing early matters.
Read more
Connecticut custody attorney Daniel M. Morton on legal and physical custody, parenting plans, relocation, and how judges decide. Glastonbury office.
Read more
Every case starts with a conversation about what you’re facing and what it would take to handle it.
