Relocation May Modify Parenting Time Arrangements

The concept of “changed circumstances’ is one that occurs throughout NJ family law, particularly in relation to modification of financial obligations such as child support or alimony. ? However, this concept is also applied to parenting time and transportation arrangements when one parent relocates within the state.
As the appellate division noted in the published opinion in Schulze v. Morris, the relocation within NJ of the custodial parent (i.e. parent of primary residence), “may have a significant impact upon the relationship between the child and the non- residential custodial parent that may constitute a substantial change of circumstances warranting modification of the custodial and parenting-time arrangement.” Schulze v. Morris, 361 N.J. Super. 419, 426 (App. Div. 2003).

This concept has also been applied to where the non-custodial parent relocates as well. An example of this is described in the October 26, 2010 unpublished appellate opinion in Carpenito v Giglio. Post divorce, the father of a child moved from Toms River (Ocean County) to Burlington County, while the mother moved to Freehold (Monmouth County). The father made a motion seeking to have the pick-up and drop-off for his daughter designated as a restaurant in Hamilton. ? Instead the judge ordered this to take place at either the Freehold or Howell police departments.

In the Carpenito case, the property settlement agreement (PSA) between the parties stated:
“The parties shall share in the transportation of the Child and shall agree upon a meeting place that is as close as practicable to a point that is halfway between the residence of the Husband and the Wife.”
On its face it looks like there was a binding agreement that would cover the father. However, the mother successfully argued that at the time this agreement was made, they lived close to each other i.e. it was not intended to cover any relocation eventuality. ? It is interesting to note that she also relocated from Ocean to Monmouth, yet the court chose to maintain the pick-up and drop-off close to her.

This decision was upheld on appeal because the standard of appellate review is whether the judge abused their discretion. ? Family law judges have a lot of discretion, so it is a hard standard to beat.

You can contrast the decision in Carpenito, with the published opinion in O’Donnell v. Singleton, 384 N.J. Super. 141 (App. Div. 2006). ? In O?€™Donnell, where one party moved to New York and the other stayed in New Jersey, it was not an abuse of discretion to require the custodial parent to drive 80 miles round trip to drop off the children at the half way point and to pick them up again from this point.

It is hard to predict the result for cases that involve changes in pick-up and transportation arrangements. ? Judges have a lot of flexibility to decide these as they see fit based on the unique facts and circumstances of the parties.
However, relocations are a reality of post-divorce life with a new job or relationship. It may, therefore, be worth considering this eventuality in any settlement agreement. You could for example indicate that it is the intent of the parties that any pick-up or drop-off occur at a public place as close as reasonably practical to the half way point between their residences, even if either party subsequently relocates within New Jersey.