## Facts

- A 1999 final custody order, entered after a contested evidentiary hearing, awarded the mother sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties’ child; the father received visitation.
- In June 2003, the father sought to modify custody to joint custody, expand visitation, and appoint counsel for the child, citing an improved parental relationship and the child’s stated interest in spending more time with him.
- The mother then disclosed plans to relocate with the child to Nevada due to her new spouse’s employment and asked the court to adjust visitation to accommodate the move; she asserted the child was very close to two younger half-siblings.
- The father filed requests to restrain the relocation, obtain a psychological evaluation, and obtain a contested evidentiary hearing with live testimony on the move-away issue.
- The trial court temporarily restrained removal from California, appointed counsel for the child, and set the matter for hearing.
- At the hearing, the court took no live testimony, denied the father’s requests to restrain the move, modify custody, and order a further evaluation, and adjusted visitation to account for the relocation.

## Issues

1. When a final order grants one parent sole legal and sole physical custody, is the noncustodial parent automatically entitled to a contested evidentiary hearing on custody and relocation upon the custodial parent’s proposed move?
2. What threshold showing must the noncustodial parent make to obtain an evidentiary hearing and potential custody modification in that move-away context?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s order.
- The Court held a noncustodial parent is not categorically entitled to a contested evidentiary hearing in a move-away dispute when a final order grants the other parent sole legal and sole physical custody.
- The Court held the trial court acted within its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing and denying relief because the father’s written submissions did not make a prima facie showing that the relocation would be detrimental to the child so as to justify revisiting the final custody order.

## Legal Principles

- A parent entitled to custody has a statutory right to change the child’s residence, subject to the court’s power to restrain a removal that would prejudice the child’s rights or welfare.  
- Where a final custody order awards one parent sole legal and sole physical custody, a noncustodial parent seeking to modify custody due to a proposed move must first make a prima facie showing, based on declarations and other written submissions, that the relocation would cause detriment sufficient to warrant considering a custody change.
- The proposed move itself does not reopen custody; stability interests tied to the final custody order weigh against modification absent a showing of likely harm that outweighs maintaining the existing custodial arrangement.
- Trial courts have discretion to determine whether an evidentiary hearing with live testimony is necessary; denial of such a hearing is permissible when the moving papers do not establish a prima facie case for custody modification.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that, after a final sole-custody order, relocation disputes do not trigger an automatic right to live-testimony hearings; absent a prima facie showing of likely detriment justifying custody modification, the trial court may decide the move-away request on written submissions and adjust visitation accordingly.


In re Marriage of Brown & Yana, 37 Cal. 4th 947, 127 P.3d 28 (Cal. 2006)