THE LAW OF RELOCATION IN VERMONT:
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CUSTODIAL PARENT WANTS TO MOVE?
By James W. Murdoch, Esq.

A decision by a custodial parent to move with a child or children -- to a different location in Vermont, or to another state -- can be very upsetting to the noncustodial parent. The disruption of children from extended family, friends and school is painful and difficult, even if the move seems to make sense for the parents. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement about the move, the case will end up in our Court. These cases are referred to as “relocation cases” and, in the last few years, have become one of the most painful and “hot button” issues litigated in our system.

Vermont has had a long and evolving history regarding the standards and modification of custody in a relocation case which were generally divided into two categories – the first dealing with sole custody situations, and the second with shared custody situations. Depending on whether the custodial parent had sole or shared custody dictated the standard the Court employ in deciding whether the custodial parent could even seek a modification in our Court. This is called the threshold issue which, simply stated, is the legal standard necessary for a non-custodial parent to meet before the Court would even consider the best interests of the children in light of the relocation.

In Hawkes v. Spence and Habecker v. Giard, a pair of cases decided together by our Supreme Court on May 16, 2005, the Court clarified the threshold standard making it more flexible and emphasizing the relationship of the parents to the children and whether the relocation would significantly impair either parent’s ability to exercise those parental responsibilities he/she has been exercising under the parenting plan. While the labels of custody – either sole or shared – are helpful, the Court stated that relocation standards need to be flexible to allow the Courts to weigh the variables that come into play in relocation cases.

In Zalot v. Bianchi, decided in May of 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court reaffirmed that standard. A reading of Bianchi, Hawkes v. Spence and Lacaillaide v. Hardaker, provide an overview of the history of the Vermont relocation cases and the present standard. When reading these cases, however, keep in mind that every case is different, and outcomes will vary depending on the language of the Final Order and the particular facts of each case.

Back To Top