## Facts

- Divorced parents shared joint legal custody of four minor children; the mother had primary physical placement and the father had specified placement periods.
- The divorce judgment required a parent intending to take the children outside the United States to give 60 days’ notice, after which the other parent could move to prohibit travel or require a bond.
- The father gave notice of an intended trip to Iran with the children to visit extended family and connect with their heritage.
- The mother moved to prohibit the trip, alleging the father had threatened to take the children to Iran and not return them and emphasizing that Iran was not a Hague Convention signatory and that U.S. diplomatic relations were limited, making return difficult if retention occurred.
- The mother sought a continuance to secure expert testimony on Iranian law and conditions; the circuit court denied the continuance but accepted an offer of proof summarizing the expected testimony.
- The circuit court placed the burden on the mother, as the moving party, to show travel was not in the children’s best interests and found the father credible in his intent to return the children.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain live expert testimony.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by placing the burden of production and persuasion on the moving parent to show prohibiting the trip was in the children’s best interests.
3. Whether the circuit court misapplied the best-interests standard by focusing on the likelihood of non-return.
4. Whether an appellate rule should categorically bar travel, over an objecting parent’s objection, to countries lacking diplomatic relations with the United States and not party to the Hague Convention.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the order denying the motion to prohibit travel.
- The denial of a continuance was within the circuit court’s discretion given the time-sensitive request and the information available, including the offer of proof.
- The circuit court properly assigned the burden to the moving parent to prove that prohibiting the trip would serve the children’s best interests.
- The circuit court applied the best-interests standard; its non-return assessment was treated as a factual component of that analysis.
- The court declined to adopt a per se, country-based prohibition on international travel in custody disputes.

## Legal Principles

- In a custody order that permits travel unless the other parent successfully moves to restrict it, the moving parent bears the burdens of production and persuasion to show that restricting the trip is in the child’s best interests.
- Absent a specific legal prohibition, a parent with joint legal custody and placement may take a child outside the state or country for a temporary trip, subject to court-ordered procedures and best-interests review.
- A continuance ruling is reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion; a court may proceed when it has adequate information, including an offer of proof, to decide a time-sensitive motion.
- International travel disputes are resolved through a case-specific best-interests determination; treaty status and diplomatic conditions are relevant factors but do not mandate categorical results.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed permission for the father to take the children to Iran, holding that the mother, as the moving party under the divorce judgment’s notice-and-motion procedure, had to prove that prohibiting the trip was in the children’s best interests; the court also rejected a categorical ban based on a destination country’s treaty and diplomatic status.


Long v. Ardestani, 624 N.W.2d 405 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)