## Facts

- The parents divorced in 1973; the mother received custody of two young children, and the father received “reasonable visitation.”
- Both parties initially lived in New Jersey.
- The mother sought court permission under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 to move the children to South Carolina for permanent residence.
- The mother asserted the move would improve living conditions and finances: more suitable and less expensive housing, a better job opportunity, and proximity to family support for childcare.
- The father objected; his historical visitation had been limited, often occurring at his mother’s home, and he frequently declined overnight visitation.
- The mother proposed extended visitation periods in New Jersey (including summer and holidays) to offset reduced frequency.
- After a plenary hearing, the court granted removal and entered an order setting structured visitation in both states and requiring security to help ensure the children’s return for New Jersey visitation.

## Issues

1. Under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, what constitutes “cause shown” permitting a custodial parent to remove children from New Jersey over the non-custodial parent’s objection?
2. Whether the mother demonstrated sufficient cause to relocate to South Carolina while preserving a meaningful relationship between the children and the father.

## Decision

- The court granted the mother’s application to relocate the children to South Carolina.
- The court held the mother showed “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 because the move was proposed in good faith and offered a real advantage likely to benefit the children.
- The court concluded the father’s relationship could be maintained through specific, enforceable visitation provisions and security measures ensuring the children’s return for scheduled visits.

## Legal Principles

- N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 embodies a policy against out-of-state removal of children of divorced parents without consent, but removal may be ordered upon “cause shown.”
- “Cause” is not limited to necessity; it can be established by a good-faith relocation that provides a genuine, substantial advantage to the custodial parent that tends to benefit the children (e.g., improved employment, housing, and family support).
- The central concern is the children’s welfare while protecting the non-custodial parent’s ability to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship.
- Courts should assess the likely impact on visitation in light of the parents’ prior visitation pattern and may authorize relocation when reasonable alternative arrangements (often longer but less frequent visits) can preserve the relationship.
- Courts may impose structured visitation schedules and safeguards, including security, to reduce the risk that relocation will impair visitation.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the custodial mother to relocate the children to South Carolina because she demonstrated good-faith, concrete advantages that would improve the children’s circumstances and because the court could preserve the father’s meaningful relationship with the children through detailed visitation provisions and security requirements.


D’Onofrio v. D’Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super. 200, 365 A.2d 27 (Ch. Div. 1976)