Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a custodial parent's relocation to another state must be evaluated under the best-interests-of-the-child standard and cannot be governed by a bright-line presumption favoring or disfavoring relocation. The court upheld the trial court's modification of primary physical custody from the relocating father to the mother because the move substantially affected the children's welfare and the mother's continued involvement in their lives. Three justices dissented, arguing that Georgia law should retain a presumption favoring the custodial parent's continued custody.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What weight should a trial court give a custodial parent's proposed relocation to another state in an action seeking modification of primary physical custody?
- May a trial court presume that relocation by a custodial parent is affirmatively in the child's best interests or that the custodial parent has a prima facie right to retain custody absent proof that the relocation endangers the child?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare and transferring primary physical custody to Ms. Bodne?
Holdings
- In a relocation-related custody-modification proceeding, the trial court must determine the child's best interests on a case-by-case basis and may not apply a bright-line presumption that relocation is in the child's best interests, that relocation alone can never support a custody change, or that the relocating custodial parent has a prima facie right to retain custody.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a substantial change in a material condition affecting the children's welfare and transferring primary physical custody to Ms. Bodne.
Key quotations
“When exercising its discretion in relocation cases, as in all child custody cases, the trial court must consider the best interests of the child and cannot apply a bright-line test.” (446)
“This analysis forbids the presumption that a relocating custodial parent will always lose custody and, conversely, forbids any presumption in favor of relocation.” (446)
“To the extent that case and any other Georgia case presumes the custodial parent has a prima facie right to retain custody unless the objecting parent shows that the environment of the proposed relocation endangers a child's physical, mental or emotional well-being, they are expressly overruled.” (447)
Factual background
Rachel Ann and David Bodne were divorced in 1999, and Dr. Bodne was awarded primary physical custody of their two children while the parties agreed to share time equally. In 2001, Dr. Bodne, who had remarried, planned to move to Alabama to establish a new medical practice and sought to modify Ms. Bodne's visitation schedule. Ms. Bodne opposed the relocation and sought primary physical custody. The trial court found that the move would substantially impair Ms. Bodne's equal involvement and negatively affect the children, based on testimony from the children's pediatrician, minister, and family friends, and transferred primary physical custody to Ms. Bodne.
Procedural history
The parties were divorced in 1999, with primary physical custody placed with Dr. Bodne and an agreement to divide time equally. After Dr. Bodne sought to modify visitation to accommodate an out-of-state move, Ms. Bodne opposed the move and sought primary physical custody. The trial court transferred primary physical custody to Ms. Bodne, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that relocation alone could not constitute a sufficient change in condition. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.