Statutes

Family Code Sec. 3022: order determining custody of the minor child may be modified at any time court deems it necessary and proper.

Family Code Sec. 3087: joint custody order may be modified if required by best interests of child.

Family Code Sec. 3120: order or decree may be modified at any time as natural rights of parties and best interests of children require.

Burden of Proof Regarding Change in Circumstances

“[T]he noncustodial parent seeking a change of the existing custody order... has the initial burden to make a substantial showing of changed circumstances affecting the children to change the final custody determination of the... court.” Jane J. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 894, 902 citing In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1088-1089.

Justification – Substantial Change in Circumstances Required

“It is settled that to justify ordering a change in custody there must generally be a persuasive showing of changed circumstances affecting the child.” Jane J. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 894, 902. “And that change must be substantial: a child will not be removed from the prior custody of one parent and given to the other ‘unless the material facts and circumstances occurring subsequently are of a kind to render it essential or expedient for the welfare of the child that there be a change.’” Id. “The reasons for the rule are clear: ‘It is well established that the courts are reluctant to order a change of custody and will not do so except for imperative reasons; that it is desirable that there be an end of litigation and undesirable to change the child's established mode of living.’” Id. citing Christina L. v. Chauncey B. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 731, 738.

“It is not enough to argue that it is time to switch sides to give the other parent the opportunity to take control.” Jane J. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 894, 903 citing In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 956 "When custody continues over a significant period, the child's need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role." Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 538. “This principle avoids an endless round of emotionally and financially draining litigation in the family law courts.” Id. at 536.

Relocation of Children and Noncustodial Parent

“[T]he custodial parent... does not have a presumptive right to relocate the children to another region of the country simply because [s]/he acts in good faith and for a legitimate reason. Instead, as the noncustodial parent who seeks a change in custody involving an out-of-state move away, [noncustodial parent] bears additional burdens of persuasion as part of the changed circumstances standard.” Speelman v. Superior Court (1983) 152 Cal.App.3d 124 at 129-130.

“A move should not be allowed where it would be ‘detrimental to the child.’ Jane J. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 894, 904 (internal citations omitted). “[T]he paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements — and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker — weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.” Id.

Factors For Trial Court's Consideration

“Here are some of the factors a family law judge should consider in evaluating a noncustodial parent's move-away request: the children's ages (and, if age appropriate, the children's wishes); community ties; health and educational needs; the attachment and past, present and potential future relationship of the children with each parent; the anticipated impact of the move upon the children's existing social, educational and familial relationships; and each parent's willingness to facilitate frequent, meaningful and continuing contact to the other parent.” Jane J. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 894, 905 citing LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1101, and cases cited therein; see also Stahl, Emerging Issues in Relocation Cases (2013) 25 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 425, 426.)

This list of factors is not exhaustive. ‘[W]e recognize that bright line rules in (child custody cases) are inappropriate: each case must be evaluated on its own unique facts.’ In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, at 39. ‘[T]his area of law is not amenable to inflexible rules.’ In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1101.