## Facts

- The parties married in 2005 and had twin daughters in 2006.
- They separated in 2013 and divorced in 2014.
- Their marital settlement agreement, incorporated into the divorce judgment, provided for joint legal custody, designated the mother as parent of primary residence, and included a clause requiring written consent to permanently relocate the children from New Jersey.
- The agreement contemplated close geographic proximity to support extensive parenting time for the father.
- In early 2015, the mother sought the father’s consent to relocate the children to Utah to marry a Utah resident; the father declined consent and took the position that the mother could move but the children should remain in New Jersey.
- The mother filed for permission to relocate the children out of state under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2; the father opposed and asserted the mother had negotiated the settlement in bad faith intending to relocate.

## Issues

1. What standard governs “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 in a contested interstate relocation dispute when the parents share legal custody: the Baures good-faith/not-inimical test or a best-interests-of-the-child test.
2. Whether the applicable standard should depend on a threshold finding that the parent seeking relocation acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations.
3. Whether the trial court may grant relocation without a plenary hearing when material facts relevant to relocation are disputed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey abandoned the Baures relocation framework.
- The Court held that in all contested relocation disputes in which parents share legal custody, courts must apply a best-interests-of-the-child standard to determine “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2.
- The Court rejected tying the governing standard to a preliminary showing of bad faith.
- The Court directed that the relocation request be evaluated on a full record, using the N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 best-interests factors and other relevant considerations.
- The matter was remanded for a plenary hearing and a best-interests determination; the Appellate Division was reversed in part to the extent it conditioned use of best-interests on proof of bad faith.

## Legal Principles

- In contested interstate relocation cases where parents share legal custody, “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 is determined by the child’s best interests, not by the Baures good-faith/not-inimical test.
- Relocation applications in this setting are treated as requests to modify custody and parenting time and must be evaluated under the best-interests framework reflected in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.
- No presumption in favor of or against relocation applies; the court must assess the child’s interests in light of all relevant circumstances, including the child’s relationships with both parents and the feasibility of maintaining those relationships after a move.
- When material facts bearing on relocation are genuinely disputed, a plenary hearing is required before deciding the relocation request.

## Conclusion

The New Jersey Supreme Court replaced the prior relocation doctrine with a uniform best-interests standard for contested out-of-state moves when parents share legal custody, and remanded for a plenary hearing to decide whether relocation was in the children’s best interests under the statutory custody factors.


Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309, 166 A.3d 1155 (N.J. 2017)