California Family Law - Move Away Cases

Question 1

What does California Family Code Section 7501 address?

Answer 1

Section 7501 addresses a custodial parent’s right to change the residence of the child, subject to the court’s power to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.

Question 2

What is a “move-away” case in California family law?

Answer 2

A move-away case refers to a situation where a custodial parent seeks to relocate with the child to a different geographic area, potentially affecting the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.

Question 3

What does “sole legal custody” mean in California family law?

Answer 3

Sole legal custody means that one parent has the right and responsibility to make decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of the child.

Question 4

What is the “changed circumstance rule” in California custody cases?

Answer 4

The changed circumstance rule requires a significant change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests before a court will modify an existing final custody order.

Question 5

What does “sole physical custody” mean in California family law?

Answer 5

Sole physical custody means that a child resides with and is under the supervision of one parent, subject to the court’s power to order visitation for the other parent.

Question 6

In the 2006 Brown v. Yana decision, what did the California Supreme Court rule a noncustodial parent must show to obtain a custody modification in a move-away case?

Answer 6

The Court ruled that the noncustodial parent must show that the move would cause detriment to the child. This maintained the principle from earlier cases but clarified its application in the context of sole custody arrangements.

Question 7

How did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision interpret Section 7501 of the Family Code regarding a custodial parent’s right to change a child’s residence?

Answer 7

The Court affirmed that this right is subject to the court’s power to restrain a removal that would prejudice the child’s rights or welfare, emphasizing judicial discretion in move-away cases.

Question 8

In Brown v. Yana (2006), how did the California Supreme Court interpret the relationship between Sections 3006-3007 and Section 7501 of the Family Code?

Answer 8

The Court interpreted Section 7501 as a limitation on the rights granted in Sections 3006-3007, allowing for judicial intervention in move-away cases even when one parent has sole custody.

Question 9

How did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision apply the “changed circumstance rule” in the context of move-away cases?

Answer 9

The Court maintained that the rule requires a substantial showing of changed circumstances affecting the child’s best interests before modifying a final custody order, even in move-away cases.

Question 10

According to the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision, when is an evidentiary hearing necessary in a move-away case?

Answer 10

The Court ruled that an evidentiary hearing is only necessary if the noncustodial parent makes a sufficient showing of potential detriment to the child, rejecting the notion of automatic entitlement to such hearings.

Question 11

What did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision state about the effect of an award of sole legal and physical custody on the other parent’s rights?

Answer 11

The Court affirmed that it does not terminate the other parent’s parental rights or due process interest in parenting, maintaining their standing to challenge move-away decisions.

Question 12

In Brown v. Yana (2006), what three factors did the California Supreme Court highlight as important for courts to consider when deciding whether to modify custody in a move-away case?

Answer 12

1) The child’s interest in stability, 2) The distance of the move, 3) The child’s relationship with both parents. The Court noted these as part of a more comprehensive list of factors to be considered.

Question 13

How did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision view evidence of general negative attributes of the proposed new location in move-away cases?

Answer 13

The Court ruled it’s insufficient on its own to show detriment specific to the child in question, emphasizing the need for evidence of specific impact on the child involved.

Question 14

What did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision say about the necessity of alleging bad faith on the part of the custodial parent in a move-away case?

Answer 14

The Court clarified that while bad faith can be relevant, it’s not necessary to allege it to get an evidentiary hearing or potentially modify a custody order. The focus should be on potential detriment to the child.

Question 15

How did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision clarify the earlier Campos v. Campos ruling regarding evidentiary hearings in move-away cases?

Answer 15

It clarified that Campos doesn’t guarantee an evidentiary hearing, but requires consideration of all relevant issues. The Court emphasized judicial discretion in determining the necessity of such hearings.

Question 16

In Brown v. Yana (2006), what did the California Supreme Court establish as the burden of proof for the noncustodial parent seeking to modify custody in a move-away case?

Answer 16

The Court ruled that the noncustodial parent must show that the proposed relocation would cause detriment to the child. If this detriment is demonstrated, it’s sufficient to require a reevaluation of the existing custody order.

Question 17

What did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision say about a child’s discomfort with moving in relation to establishing detriment in move-away cases?

Answer 17

The Court stated it might be sufficient to establish detriment in some cases, but not always. They emphasized the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case.

Question 18

According to the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision, what is the primary focus in move-away cases?

Answer 18

The Court emphasized that the primary focus should be on whether the move would cause detriment to the child, regardless of the custodial parent’s motives.

Question 19

What did the Brown v. Yana (2006) decision establish regarding the standing of a parent with no custodial rights to challenge a move-away decision?

Answer 19

The Court affirmed that such parents have standing to request the court to exercise its power under Section 7501, rejecting arguments that lack of custody rights eliminates standing.

Question 20

In Brown v. Yana (2006), what did the California Supreme Court establish as the initial burden for a noncustodial parent in move-away cases involving a parent with sole custody?

Answer 20

The Court established that the noncustodial parent bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the proposed move would cause detriment to the child. This showing must be substantial enough to warrant further inquiry, but doesn’t require definitive proof of detriment at this stage.