## Facts

- The parties divorced under a judgment incorporating a property settlement agreement granting the mother primary residential custody of their minor daughter and the father frequent parenting time, including mid-week and alternate weekends, plus extended vacations.
- Years later, the mother sought permission to relocate with the child from New Jersey to North Carolina under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 due to remarriage and improved economic and household stability tied to her new husband’s employment and residence.
- The mother proposed a revised parenting-time schedule providing the father longer blocks of time during summers, holidays, and school breaks, plus regular remote contact.
- The father opposed relocation, asserting the move would significantly reduce his ongoing relationship with the child, and cross-moved for transfer of primary residential custody if the mother relocated.
- The Family Part denied the relocation application and ordered that primary residential custody would transfer to the father if the mother moved.
- The mother appealed, arguing the court misapplied the relocation standard from Baures v. Lewis and improperly ordered a contingent custody transfer without required findings.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court correctly applied the Baures v. Lewis standard to the custodial parent’s request to relocate out of state with the child.
2. Whether the trial court could order an automatic, relocation-contingent transfer of primary residential custody to the noncustodial parent without a proper changed-circumstances showing and best-interests findings.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held the trial court misapplied Baures and failed to conduct a full factor-based analysis of whether the move would harm the child.
- The court concluded the mother presented proofs substantially satisfying Baures’s prima facie requirements (good faith reason; move not shown harmful on the existing record), requiring reconsideration under the correct standard and potential further fact development.
- The court reversed the order providing for an automatic transfer of primary residential custody to the father upon the mother’s relocation.
- The matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with Baures and, if custody modification remained at issue, for a complete best-interests evaluation supported by adequate findings.

## Legal Principles

- A custodial parent seeking out-of-state relocation must show (1) a good-faith reason for the move and (2) that the move is not inimical to the child’s interests under the Baures framework, including consideration of the enumerated Baures factors.
- Remarriage and improved economic or household stability can constitute good-faith reasons supporting relocation, subject to a child-focused evaluation of potential harm and workable parenting-time arrangements.
- Courts must consider whether a restructured parenting-time plan (including extended vacation periods and regular remote communication) can preserve a meaningful relationship with the noncustodial parent despite increased distance.
- Custody modification requires a showing of changed circumstances affecting the child’s welfare and a best-interests determination based on the evidentiary record and governing custody factors.
- A relocation-contingent, automatic transfer of primary residential custody is improper without contemporaneous best-interests findings and a sufficient factual basis supporting the change.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required reconsideration of the custodial mother’s relocation request under the proper Baures analysis and reversed a custody-transfer order that would have automatically shifted primary custody to the father upon relocation without the requisite changed-circumstances and best-interests findings.


O’Connor v. O’Connor, 349 N.J. Super. 381, 793 A.2d 810 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)