## Facts

- Divorced parents had two minor children under a property settlement agreement providing joint legal custody and designating the mother as primary residential custodian.
- The mother sought to relocate with the children from New Jersey to Massachusetts, citing ties to a fiancé and extended family there.
- The father opposed relocation and moved to modify custody, asserting changed circumstances and a de facto shared physical custody arrangement; he sought residential custody if the mother moved.
- The Family Part rejected the father’s claimed change in circumstances and de facto shared custody, treated the agreement’s custodial designation as controlling, and applied the *Baures* relocation standard.
- The Family Part denied both the relocation request and the father’s custody motion, finding the mother lacked a good reason to move and that relocation would harm the children.
- The Appellate Division reversed the denial of relocation, found the trial court’s conclusions unsupported by the record, and remanded only to expedite the move.
- By the time of Supreme Court review, material circumstances had changed, including the end of the mother’s engagement, the father’s remarriage and new child, and one child’s increased maturity such that her preference could be considered.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Part misapplied the *Baures v. Lewis* relocation framework such that its denial of relocation could not stand.
2. Whether the Appellate Division erred by ordering a limited remand to implement relocation without requiring a new, up-to-date *Baures* analysis in light of substantial intervening changes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court agreed that the trial court’s relocation analysis was seriously flawed under *Baures* and warranted reversal of the denial of relocation.
- The Supreme Court held the Appellate Division’s remand was too narrow because it effectively presumed the earlier relocation analysis remained valid despite significant intervening changes.
- The Court modified the judgment and remanded for a new, comprehensive *Baures* evaluation based on circumstances existing at the time of remand, rather than a remand limited to effectuating a move.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Baures v. Lewis*, a custodial parent seeking to relocate must show (1) a good-faith reason for the move and (2) that the child will not suffer harm from the move, guided by identified factors relevant to the child’s welfare and the parties’ reasons.
- Relocation determinations are fact-sensitive and must be grounded in current circumstances; substantial passage of time and major life changes can require a fresh analysis rather than implementation of an earlier outcome.
- Appellate relief in relocation disputes should not mandate or implement relocation on an outdated record when intervening developments may materially affect good faith, potential harm to the children, and related *Baures* considerations.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court required a new relocation hearing applying the *Baures* framework to present-day facts, affirming reversal of the trial court’s flawed analysis but rejecting a remand limited to expediting relocation given significant post-trial changes affecting the family.


Morgan v. Morgan, 205 N.J. 50, 12 A.3d 192 (N.J. 2011)