The question must be asked as in all move away cases is the reason for the move away a motive separate than other reasons given for the move away request. Often the move away if fought with anterior motives and seems to be almost always done so based on my experience. Although parties in the move away process claim, family, jobs, friends are the sole motivating forces generating the move. But are they? I truly believe in most case the move away is done to alienate the other parent from their children. I have not had a case where it did not come up that the moving party was in a very contentious custody dispute and the other party just got up and left the state. Dont tell me this was to find a better job and to go live with mommy and daddy in another state because things were better there. I dont believe it at all. This is where I really disagree with most court rulings with move away orders given by superior court judges who always seem to side the with he primary custodian of the children. Although the argument that child needs stability and has bonded with one parent already and the courts do not want to disrupt this stable status quo relationship they in effect has left behind a parent without any connnection to their child so that one parent can go on with their life and leave the other parent helpless and without child. This cannot happen anymore and needs to be addressed seriously by the superior court family law bench of all united states.
In one case in particuar case Bruce v Jennifer an Alaskan superior court case involving Domestic violence and child custody move away issues brings to a forefront the anterior motives of a party while trying to hoodwink the court to get what they want which is full custody of the child and to escape dodge with the kid and tearing the bond from the other parent in half as a result of Courts blessings.
The appellant in the Michigan move away case alleged on appeal that Jennifer had committed domestic violence in a prior relationship which would assist Bruce the father in alleging giving her sole physical custody was not in the best interest of the child. The court stated, in full:Regarding the accusation that [Jennifer] hit her boyfriend, there is no time frame associated with this alleged incident
and no testimony in support of the allegation, nor is there a report that this incident resulted in judicial proceedings or has
occurred on multiple occasions. Also This does not rise to the level of domestic violence. The appellate court also asserted that although the prior domestic violence proceeding did not go to court it did not make the determination that domestic violence did or did not occur.
Thus ultimately the case was not overturned but did go back to the trial court for further consideration to determine custody issues.