This week the Supreme court of new Jersey took the decision to change the 26-year-old judicial precedent having the force for divorced parents, one of which intends to move a child from the state contrary to the objection of the former spouse.
If used in considering such cases focused on the issue of whether such a move affect the child, reserving the interest of the child on the back burner, but now it’s different.
The new standard stipulates the obligation for the parent who wants to take a son or daughter with you to prove that this step corresponds to the “best interests” of his child. If not, the child should remain.
The basis for the introduction of such a rule was the imposition on Tuesday, August 8 decision on the case 2015.
The dispute in this case: the father tried to return the daughters, with whom their mother (his ex-wife) moved to Utah a year after the divorce.
In agreement about the divorce Bjsbingo specify the condition under which a relocation of one parent with the children is possible only with the consent of the other parent. And Glenn Bisbing didn’t want his daughter left new Jersey.
However, the court ruled in favor of Jamie Taormina Bisbingthat she took the kids to Utah to her new lover. Moreover, the hearing in the case was conducted, the court was guided by the precedent established in 2001 as a result of resolving this situation (matter of Belmonte v. Lewis).
Just then, the standard that the parent who wants to move to another state with kids against the wishes of the other parent, is sufficient to demonstrate the bona fides of the reasons of relocation and that it will not harm the interests of the child.
However, Glenn Bisbing didn’t want to give up and appealed to the court of appeal, which subsequently reversed the lower court’s decision and demanded a hearing. In this case the mother has the burden of proving that the move to Utah is really in the interests of the daughters.
During the hearing, the court denied the motion Jamie Bisbing about how to stay in Utah, and ordered the parties to comply with the terms of the divorce. Then the mothers had to return with the children back.
Thus, thanks to the decision of the appellate court of new Jersey joined the majority of States who already apply the standard of “best interests of the child”.
