Relocation

Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D.

Waldron Kriss and Associates

6702 Stonefield Road, Suite A

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562

kwaldron@smallbytes.net

Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D.

Research is not nor should it be interpreted as a recommendation for or against relocation in a specific case. Each case is unique and a determination on the issue of relocation can only be made by taking into consideration of the facts of the case.

For our purposes, relocation is defined as a proposed move by one of the parties to a divorce, in either a divorce action or a post-divorce modification, to a new location, with the child or children. The move by definition must requires a substantial change in the physical custody schedule, if there is one, or is a major limiting factor in designing a placement schedule. Typically, the limitation is that one of the parents must be the primary school year placement parent. It does not necessarily mean a reduction in the total amount of time spent with a parent. A parent who has every other weekend and 3 weeks in the summer, for example, might contest relocation even though the petition filed might include a proposal for that same parent to have more total time with increased summer placement. The limitation is not so much the total amount of time, although it might mean that in a specific case. The limitation is in the type of time spent with the child and/or the frequency of time.

Relocation is one of the more agonizing child-related issues in divorce and post-divorce litigation. By definition, relocation is a win/lose situation for the parents. Much can be at stake for both. For the person making the move, it could include a new romantic relationship, even a marriage, a wonderful career opportunity, an opportunity to move near extended family, or simply the psychological need to leave the area of the marriage and the ex-spouse. For the person contesting the move, it could mean the loss of important participation in the child’s life, of attending school functions, of going to dance recitals, or seeing the first date. Both parents, therefore, might have intense emotions. The proposal of relocation might even rekindle conflict that has long settled down.

Litigation can fuel these fires. Winning the relocation case can often appear to require minimizing the importance of the other parent, exaggerating weaknesses and mistakes in the parties, and dragging up the muck, so to speak. In win lose struggles between people, competition is the most rational strategy, even though to some extent much harm is done.

There is little systematic research looking at actual outcomes in relocation cases. The work that has been done on this topic extrapolates from other research. It is also a somewhat controversial area of study. The two sides of the debate can probably best be represented in the work of Wallerstein in her amica curie brief submitted in the Burgess case in California on the one end and the work of Warshak, published in various journals, on the other. Waldron has summarized over 70 studies and literature summaries on the topic and has talked with people knowledgeable on this topic. However, we still face the problem that there is little direct research on families in which the parents have relocated. Waldron has concluded that the bulk of research findings from which we can extrapolate do not support relocation. There are some conditions in which relocation, on balance, serves the interests of children, but these appear to be fairly narrow.

Caution must be used in relying too heavily on social science research is that findings are correlative, not causative. In other words, Research allows us to say that 25% of children of divorce are likely to have substantial adjustment problems, whereas only 10% of children from intact marriages are likely to have those same major adjustment problems. We can say, therefore, that children of divorce are two and one half times as likely to develop substantial adjustment problems. These findings are correlative in that one cannot conclude a causal relationship, that is, that divorce causes adjustment problems. In fact, there is good research to suggest that it does not. The causal factors are mental health problems in parents, the level of conflict in the family, socio-economic status to some extent, and quality of parenting. These are the family based causes of adjustment problems in children AND the presence of these factors also appears to cause higher divorce rates. In other words, the type of people who are likely to have children with adjustment problems are also, on average, more likely to have marital problems and get divorce. What this implies is that while a specific proposed relocation might have associated risks, it might not be causative. It might be, for example, that the rates of poor outcomes are higher with relocation, BUT that highly unstable parties who relocate repeatedly might skew this outcome. It might be that having a highly unstable parent is the problem, not the move.

There are several other important cautions one should use when relying on social science research, including the wording of studies, the quality of the research, and the problems in using general research findings to predict in a particular case. However, social science research can provide crucial information on risk levels for children and even provide means by which those risks can be mitigated in a particular case.

It is not our purpose to provide a summary of the research here. Rather, we simply want to present findings from a recent study that is the first, of which we are aware, that looks at relocation very explicitly. There is no dispute in the literature that a divorce is impactful, even sometimes traumatic, on children, at least in the short term. There is a disruption in many aspects of the child’s life. Children are therefore vulnerable to additional disruption, especially close to the time of a divorce. Even Wallerstein cautions against increasing the disruptive experience of children close to the time of the divorce. There are even post-traumatic syndromes (e.g. "cumulative stress syndrome" described by Hodges) associated with too much change, including moving residences, post-divorce. The very act of a move following a parental separation is very risky both to the short-term and the long-term adjustment of children. The age of the child also is an important consideration in relocation. For some aged children, the move can be a lifelong disaster. For other aged children, the move might mean a temporary disruption, but in the end be of much more benefit than harm. Relocation in a specific instance might also be a precursor to further moves. In about 50% of all post-divorce relocation cases, the parent making the move will move again. Typically, although not always, it is the mother that wants to make the move. This might, or might not, have enormous effects on the relationship and benefits of father involvement with the child. It might even enhance the relationship under some conditions. There are a number of myths about relocation, also, some of which have been falsely asserted by relatively well-known researchers. These factors are covered elsewhere and will not be covered here.

Much has been published on relocation. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers had an entire journal devoted to the topic in 1998. There has also been enormous case law on the issue (see Trusch for a good summary). Recent cases (e.g. Lewis and Scott in Georgia) signal another trend shift in how states deal with the issue. Historically, states have gone back and forth demonstrating enormous ambivalence in the courts on how to balance parents’ rights with children’s interests.

Recently, a study was published on the effects of relocation on children. Readers of divorce literature will recognize the names of these well-published college professors. They used a one hour travel time between homes to demarcate long-distance (i.e. relocation case) from short-distance (non-relocation case). They essentially surveyed college students (602 subjects). The findings clearly indicate that at least as reported by college freshman, the child saw relocation as harmful to various aspects of their childhood. One might easily guess what they reported, i.e. negative effects on their social life, activities, disruptions in their schooling, disruptions in their relationships with others in the community, etc. Not the least notable of the findings was what was perceived by the child as damage to the relationship with the parent who was left behind. Although the authors describe their findings as preliminary, they also note that perhaps the burden of proof ought to be on the parent moving away, to show that the potential benefits are likely to outweigh the drawbacks described in their study.

We would like to underscore the tremendous risks associated with relying on one, even one well conducted study. We are particularly cautious about relying on the subjective reports of young adults regarding their childhood experiences. Any parent who has been through this phase of their children’s lives knows that 18 and 19 year olds might have a somewhat skewed view of their childhood experiences. They might complain about experiences that objectively served them well. There are also other problems associated with one study and we certainly should not develop public policy on the basis of these findings.

However these findings are consistent with and supportive of the overall view represented in important publications on this topic, including the research review developed by myself prior to this study. This might suggest leaning just a bit more in the direction of being more skeptical of proposed relocation. We still face the problem of balancing the rights of the parents to lead lives that might include moving out of the area in which they live with their children, and their ex-spouse, with the best interests of their children. With more information like this study, however, informing as to the potential risks associated with relocation, we learn that perhaps a move is not such a good idea, or if it is undertaken, parents can take some steps to mitigate the effects on the child.

Respectfully Submitted:

Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D