New Parenting Statute. Change #4
Change number 4 may be one of the most difficult for divorce lawyers and clients to interpret. It reads as follows:
“The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against relocation of either parent with a child.”
The Courts now need to look at the geographic viability of the plan proposed by the parties. I assume that the Courts are going to consider the distance children will travel when deciding what plan to implement. Although the second sentence of this provision indicates that this will not create a presumption for or against relocation, it is my opinion that this provision will not necessarily apply to relocation cases. Cases where one parent relocates a significant distance from the other are not cases where you are going to request that the Court allow mid-week parenting time for school-age children. It is not feasible for children to travel in a car for hours back and forth between parents when they have school the next day.
I believe that this section of the statute will be more relevant when parents are asking the Court to adopt a plan that will cause the children to be exchanged with some frequency and the parents do not necessarily live close to one another. The question will be what length of time the children spend traveling to and from each home and whether the children are losing time in the afternoon which affects their studies and whether the travel time is causing them to wake up much earlier for school at one parent’s home versus the other.
Practice tip: If you intend to ask the Court to adopt a parenting plan with mid-week exchanges for school-age children, keep your residence within close proximity of the other parent.
