Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2003, Vol. 17, No. 2, 206 –219 0893-3200/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.2.206

Relocation of Children After Divorce and Children’s Best Interests:

New Evidence and Legal Considerations
Sanford L. Braver Ira M. Ellman
Arizona State University Arizona State University and
University of California, Berkeley

William V. Fabricius
Arizona State University

Relocation cases, in which a divorced parent seeks to move away with the child, are among
the knottiest problems facing family courts. The recent trend is to permit such moves, largely
because of Wallerstein’s (1995) controversial amica curiae brief, which a recent court
(Baures v. Lewis, 2001) interpreted as supporting the conclusion that “in general, what is
good for the custodial parent is good for the child” (p. 222). The current study provides the
first direct evidence on relocation by dividing college students into groups on the basis of their
divorced parents’ move-away status. On most child outcomes, the ones whose parents moved
are significantly disadvantaged. This suggests courts should give greater weight to the child’s
separate interests in deciding such cases.

Americans are a mobile people for whom moving is a whose parents had divorced, 61% experienced a move of
relatively common experience. According to 2000 U.S. more than one hour’s drive by at least one parent at some
Census data, between March 1997 and March 1998, 16% of time during their childhood; of the divorced sample, 25%
all Americans moved (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). moved with their custodial mother away from their father.
About 43% of the movers left for a different metropolitan Postdivorce moves give rise to legal disputes primarily
statistical area. The adults most likely to move are those when the custodial parent seeks to move with the child and
between 20 and 34 years old, ages at which they are likely the other parent objects to the move’s impact on his2 con-
to have young children.1 Undoubtedly for that reason, chil- tacts with the child. This fact pattern is, therefore, the focus
dren are, on average, more likely to move than are adults. of this introductory discussion, but we later return to the
Between March 1997 and March 1998, 23.5% of all chil- companion case, in which the noncustodial parent relocates,
dren between 1 and 4 years of age moved. Children between leaving the custodial household behind.
5 and 6 moved at an annual rate of 17.9%. Rates for older Relocation disputes pose a considerable dilemma for
children were a bit lower. courts (Kelly & Lamb, 2003). They may pit a custodial
People appear especially likely to move after their mar- parent’s reasonable wish to better her circumstances by
riage fails. Ford (1997) showed that within 4 years of moving against a noncustodial parent’s reasonable desire to
separation and divorce, about one fourth of mothers with maintain the frequent contact with his minor child that is a
custody move to a new location. In Braver and O’Connell’s normal and perhaps essential element of any parental rela-
(1998) data set, 3% of the custodial parents who could be tionship. How the court should decide such cases has been
located moved out of the area within 12 weeks of the a fertile source of dispute (Bruch & Bowermaster, 1996;
divorce filing, 10% moved away within a year, and 17% Elrod & Spector, 1997; American Academy of Matrimonial
moved within 2 years. As explained more fully below, Lawyers, 1998; Richards, 1999). The applicable legal rules
among the college students surveyed for the current study have been unstable, as different courts and different states
have struggled to develop coherent and just policies (Amer-
ican Law Institute, 2002, Reporter’s Notes to Comment d, §
2.17). According to legal researchers (Bruch & Bowermas-
Sanford L. Braver and William V. Fabricius, Department of ter, 1996; Elrod & Spector, 1997; Richards, 1999) some
Psychology, Arizona State University; Ira M. Ellman, School of states’ statutes declare a presumption permitting the reloca-
Law, Arizona State University and Earl Warren Institute, Boalt
Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
1
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Michael Lamb Adults between 20 and 24 moved more frequently (34.2%)
and Jason Williams. than adults in any other age range, with those from 25 to 29 (31%)
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed and 30 to 34 (22%) next most likely.
2
either to Sanford L. Braver, Department of Psychology, Arizona Because about 85% of custodial parents are mothers (Meyer &
State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1104 or to Ira M. Ellman, Garasky, 1993; Nord & Zill, 1997), for convenience, but with
School of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287- some loss of accuracy, we refer to noncustodial parents with
7906. E-mail [email protected] or [email protected] masculine pronouns and custodial parents with feminine.

206
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 207

tion (e.g., Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin), whereas who has not taken advantage of his opportunities for time
others have a presumption precluding it (e.g., Montana and with his child when they both live in the same city is poorly
South Carolina). Some place the burden of proof on the positioned to argue that the child’s relocation will unduly
parent desiring to relocate (e.g., Arizona, Alaska, and Ar- burden his right to maintain their relationship. Notice too
kansas); others place it on the parent opposing the move that the proposed relocation may not burden the child’s
(e.g., California, Connecticut, and Louisiana). When courts interests in these cases: In the first, the child’s relationship
have been called on to interpret these statutes or case law, with the parent left behind may continue unimpeded, and in
they previously have generally restricted such moves (Ter- the second, it may be largely absent in any event.
ry, Proctor, Phelan, & Womack, 1998), and some still hold On the other side, some reasons for relocation are more
there is a presumption against it (e.g., White v. White, 1994). compelling and legitimate than others. For example, the
However, the trend in court decisions in the past 5 years, custodial parent with unpursued nearby employment pros-
beginning with the Burgess decision in California (In re the pects that are substantially equivalent to those available at
Marriage of Burgess, 1996; Shear, 1996), has clearly been the more distant situation (or whose new spouse has such
to permit relocation (American Law Institute, 2002, Report-
prospects, where the new spouse’s career is the occasion for
er’s Notes to Comment d, § 2.17).
the move) is differently situated than if relocation is truly
In coming to their decisions, courts consider the interests
of both the parents and the child, which are, of course, necessary to realize a major career opportunity. Or compare
intertwined (American Law Institute, 2002, § 2.02; Austin, the spouse with friends and family nearby, as well as in a
2000a, 2000b; Braver, Hipke, Ellman, & Sandler, in press; distant location, with another who came only recently to the
Miller, 1995; Richards, 1999; Rotman, Tompkins, Schwartz, city she now wants to leave so that she can return to her
& Samuels, 2000; Sample & Reiger, 1998; Sobie, 1995). On former home, in which she has many relatives and close
the one hand, the better home that the custodial parent sees friends who are available to provide critical assistance.
for herself in a new location can also be seen as a better Once again, the interests of the child whose custodial parent
home for the child. On the other hand, preserving the has less compelling reasons to relocate seem themselves
noncustodial parent’s relationship with the child can be seen less likely to be furthered by the relocation, because there
as an important interest of the child’s as well as the parent’s. seems little reason to think the proposed home offers the
As a strategic matter, both contesting parents are best off child advantages over the present one. In short, sometimes
portraying their own interests as aligned with the child’s, an analysis of the interests of all parties will allow us
because the child’s interests are normally regarded as the confidently to conclude that this custodial parent should, or
guidepost for all custody decisions, including relocation should not, relocate with the child.
(American Law Institute, 2002, § 2.02). But understanding Other cases are harder. Consider, for example, the cus-
the dilemma facing courts in these cases requires examining todial parent with sound reasons for seeking to move to a
separately each of these three interests. distant location that will in fact seriously impair a caring
The interest of the noncustodial parent is both obvious and involved noncustodial parent’s access to his child. The
and substantial: retaining sufficient contact with his child to New York Supreme Court, for example, has termed such
maintain a parental relationship. Significant physical sepa- relocation disputes to be among “the knottiest and most
ration that makes weekly or even monthly visits impractical disturbing problems” (p. 736) courts face (Tropea v. Tropea,
is likely to add considerably to the difficulty of maintaining
such a relationship. The interest of the relocating custodial
3
parent can also be substantial. The move may be necessary The constitutional protection afforded parents against arbitrary
to accommodate a new job for the custodial parent or it may government action depriving them of access to their children is
be required to pursue an educational opportunity; perhaps well established, arising in many contexts (see Ellman, Kurtz, &
she is moving in order to remarry or perhaps her new spouse Scott, 1998, pp. 1063–1093 [protection of unmarried father’s pa-
rental right]; pp. 1337–1354 [termination of parental rights gener-
is being transferred; maybe the move is contemplated to ally]). Most recently, the United State Supreme Court has held that
allow the custodial parent to live near friends or relatives parental rights are violated when a state court requires parents to
available to provide that parent needed assistance or sup- allow third parties, including grandparents, access to their children
port. Both the noncustodial parent’s interest in access to his merely because a judge decides that such access is in the child’s
child and the custodial parent’s interest in choosing to move best interests; parents alone have a right of access (Troxel v.
are substantial enough that governmental actions that bur- Granville, 2000). The constitutional status of a right to travel or
den either of them may, depending on the facts, be limited choose one’s residence is more contested but clearly exists in some
by federal constitutional principles.3 form and has been relied on by some courts in custody relocation
Of course, in any particular case we may have good cases (see, e.g., Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 1991 [placing the burden
reason to doubt the importance or sincerity of either parent’s of proof on the custodial parent is an unconstitutional impairment
of the relocating parent’s right to travel] and Holder v. Polanski,
proffered interests. In some cases, the relatively short dis- 1988 [allowing relocation unless adverse to child’s best interests
tance of the proposed move, or the child’s relatively greater avoids the unconstitutional infringement on parent’s right to trav-
age, may suggest that the custodial parent’s relocation el], although even courts recognizing the applicability of a consti-
would place no important burden on the noncustodial par- tutional right to travel find that it yields when the child’s interests
ent’s relationship with the child. In other cases there may so require, Everett v. Everett, 1995 [best interests of the child have
not be much relationship to burden: A noncustodial parent priority over the parent’s right to travel]).
208 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

1996). Such cases inevitably result in a decision adverse to children would be much better off, assuming the primary
a parent with a good claim, because both parents have a custodian relocates, remaining with Dad as the new primary
good claim, insofar as their own interests are at stake. Here custodian rather than moving with Mom to her new home.
especially, then, the child’s interests seem key, but intuition (Many states impose an even more demanding rule.5) And
(so often relied on by appellate courts in devising rules)
offers little guidance as to where those interests lie. Trust-
worthy empirical evidence concerning the impact of a cus- 4
Jurisdictions do disagree about whether an order conditioning
todial parent’s long-distance moves on the children is thus continuation of primary custody on the parent’s remaining at the
critical to resolving the legal policy question. same residence must satisfy otherwise applicable modification
There is, however, an even more fundamental problem, standards. Among those courts that have issued conditional orders
for it also turns out that cases that seem easy may actually without determining whether the change of custody from one
parent to the other would be justified under the rules applicable to
be difficult for courts. Consider a case with facts like these: custody modifications, see LaChapelle v. Mitten (2000, upholding
Both parents have a good relationship with their two chil- court order conditioning mother’s custody on her return to Min-
dren; Mom has primary custody and has always been the nesota); Maeda v. Maeda (1990; upholding court order granting
primary parent; and Dad, the family’s primary breadwinner, mother primary physical custody subject to transfer if she leaves
works long hours incompatible with being the primary the court’s jurisdiction); Lozinak v. Lozinak (1990; upholding
parent, although he is emotionally connected to his children, conditional order providing mother with continued physical cus-
always makes full use of his visitation rights, and reliably tody only if she stayed in Pennsylvania, and otherwise primary
pays his substantial child support obligation. The parents custody would change to father, under best interests test); Alfieri v.
Alfieri (1987, upholding court order that made continued custody
cannot realistically switch roles without a major financial
by mother contingent on return to New Mexico); see also Sullivan
sacrifice that will affect their children as well as themselves, v. Sullivan (1993; conditioning mother’s custody on not moving,
because Mom’s earning potential does not approach Dad’s. even after the court determined that best interests of child would
Mom seeks to move several thousand miles away but offers not be served by change of custody to father).
no compelling rationale for the move, which the court Courts holding that conditional awards may not be issued unless
reasonably suspects is truly motivated by her anger at Dad’s a change of custody would be warranted under the modification of
remarriage. Dad cannot move to Mom’s intended destina- custody standards include In re the Marriage of Burgess (1996;
tion without an immediate and substantial sacrifice in in- California statute provides no grounding for permitting court to
come and without imposing severe dislocations on his new test parental attachment by “bluff” that custody will change if
parent relocates); Lamb v. Wenning (1992; move out of state by
wife, who also has a career requiring her to remain where custodial parent does not justify change in custody unless the usual
she is. Dad therefore opposes her relocation and persuades more stringent standard governing requests for change in
the court that it would seriously impair his relationship with custody—that the changed circumstances are so substantial and
his children and that Mom has no good reason for it. continuing as to make the existing custody order unreasonable—is
Now consider the choices logically available to a judge met); Gould v. Miller (1992; to justify change of custody away
asked to rule on Dad’s objection to Mom’s proposed move from custodial parent, other parent must show significant change in
(the legally available choices may be fewer, as we note circumstances plus adverse effect on child); Lane v. Schenk (1992;
below): The court may (a) allow Mom to relocate with the continued custody may not be conditioned on remaining in com-
munity, unless in light of the move, children’s best interests would
children; (b) order primary custody changed from Mom to
be so undermined that transfer of custody is necessary); Hensgens
Dad, if Mom chooses to relocate (so that the status quo may v. Hensgens (1995; change in custody to the nonrelocating parent
or may not continue, depending on Mom’s decision as to not justified simply because the relocation would reduce contact
relocation); or (c) make no change in the custodial arrange- with the child); Moore v. Moore (1991; change in custody would
ments but instead tell Mom she may not move. It turns out impose an “equally difficult” burden on custodial parent as on
that all of these choices are problematic. The first seems noncustodial parent). See also Taylor v. Taylor (1993; describing
inadvisable because the court does not want to endorse the as “the worst of several possible alternatives” (p. 321) that mother,
move. The second was once a fairly common response to a who was not allowed by the trial court to relocate to lowa, is living
case like this, courts employing such orders strategically to in an apartment in Memphis with child of former marriage and
infant child of new marriage, separated from her new husband who
deter relocation. Recent cases reject such a strategic use of goes to school in Iowa).
change-of-custody orders, however, even though new evi- 5
Indeed, the legal burden placed on the party seeking to change
dence tells us that they are or would be effective as deter- primary custody can be more substantial. The Commissioners on
rents in nearly two thirds of cases (Braver, Cookston, & Uniform State Laws have urged, since their adoption of the Uni-
Cohen, 2002). form Marriage and Divorce (UMDA) Act in the early 1970’s
These recent cases bar the use of conditional change-of- (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws,
custody orders as strategic tools to deter relocation because 1974), that such petitions be rejected unless the movant can show
they require that such orders satisfy the requirements that that “the child’s present environment endangers seriously his phys-
ical, mental, moral, or emotional health, and the harm likely to be
govern ordinary petitions to change primary custody.4 Al- caused by a change of environment is outweighed by its advan-
though there is of course variation from state to state, as a tages” (§ 409(b)). State statutes adopting the UMDA standard
general matter these requirements are fairly demanding. At include Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131(2) (1998); Ky. Rev. Stat.
a minimum, they would in this context bar a conditional Ann. § 403.340(2) (Banks-Baldwin 1998); Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
change-of-custody order unless the court found that the § 3109.04(E)(1)(a) (West 1995); see also Mont. Code Ann.
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 209

that is a showing men like the Dad in our example are parent’s relocation, without changing the physical custody
unlikely to be able to make. Parents who are primary order, if it finds that the prohibition is in the best interest of
custodians under existing court orders usually provide a the child (Wis. Stat. Ann., 1998).
home at least as good as that which the other parent would Certainly, if one focused exclusively, or even primarily,
provide, and there is no obvious reason to think that as a on the child’s interests, simple orders granting or denying a
general matter Mom’s parenting ability will be so compro- custodial parent’s request to relocate might seem plausible.
mised by her move that shifting primary custody to Dad It may be that courts have not normally entertained them
would become demonstrably superior for the child. Indeed, because they had no need to: Conditional change-of-custody
while the relocation-caused separation from Dad may be orders served the same purpose, and in fact usually worked
burdensome for the child, separation from Mom, who has as intended to deter the relocation. There is no question that
been the child’s primary caretaker during and after the at one time many courts employed them in situations in
marriage, might seem worse. And indeed, Dad may be which they simply assumed, probably correctly, that no
reluctant even to seek a conditional change-of-custody or- change in custody would in fact ever take place because the
der, from fear that Mom might call his bluff. custodial parent would not move. Some courts continue to
What Dad really wants, of course, is the third alternative: employ them, despite the recent legal trend otherwise.6 If
a simple order that Mom not relocate. As a general matter, one were persuaded that the interests of children were
however, such orders are not available. Courts generally served by such orders, one might believe that the recent
regard themselves as having authority to decide whether the trend is ill advised and should be reversed. Once again, then,
child can relocate, because at divorce the court assumes a evidence on the impact of parental moves on children seems
responsibility for the child’s welfare. It has no more author- key to the important policy choices courts are currently
ity over the parent’s relocation, however, than over any making in this area.
other adult’s choice of where to live. Cases like our example
might suggest to some, however, that this limitation be
reconsidered. Indeed, there is at least one state that does Social Science Evidence and Relocation
provide its courts statutory authority to prohibit a custodial
Unfortunately, in a recent review of the social science
literature undertaken for the legal community (Gindes,
1998), not a single empirical study could be found contain-
ing direct data on the effects of parental moves on the
§ 40-4-219(1), (8) (1997) (same, without endangerment standard, well-being of children of divorce. In its absence, courts
and with additional grounds that child is at least 14 years of age
and desires the modification, the custodial parent has interfered
appear to have relied instead on quite indirect—and quite
with noncustodial parent’s exercise of visitation rights, or the par- controversial—social science evidence about the potential
ent has been convicted of one of a number of listed crimes relating effects of relocation on children. Even more troubling, this
to the child’s welfare); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.09.260(2) controversial evidence appears to have played an important
(West 1997) (same, with addition that the nonmoving party has role in generating the recent shift in legal doctrine away
been found in contempt of court at least twice in the past 2 years from restrictions on moves by custodial parents.
or has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or Consider the decision of the California Supreme Court In
second degree). Although other jurisdictions allow more flexibil- re the Marriage of Burgess (1996), an early and influential
ity, their general approach still favors maintenance of the status precedent in this legal shift, as noted earlier. At one time
quo. Section 2.15 (1) of the American Law Institute’s (2002) California had placed the burden on the relocating parent to
recently approved Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution
recommends that the court limit nonconsensual changes in the
prove that her move was in the child’s best interest, and
custody arrangements to cases in which it finds taking into account the noncustodial parent’s ability to
exercise visitation was a “significant consideration” in as-
on the basis of facts that were not known or have arisen since sessing that interest (see In re Carlson, 1991; Cooper v.
the entry of the prior order and were not anticipated therein, Roe, 1993). In Burgess the court reversed itself, holding that
that a substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of
the child or of one or both parents and that a modification is the parent with primary custody has a presumptive right to
necessary to the child’s welfare. (p. 332) move with the child, which can be overcome only if the
other parent shows that changing custody from the relocat-
Recommendations of the American Law Institute are often very
influential with courts. For a comprehensive review of varying
ing to the objecting parent “is essential or expedient for the
state rules on custody change, see the Reporter’s Notes to Com- welfare of the child” (In re the Marriage of Burgess, 1996,
ment a of Section 2.15, which conclude that a clear majority of p. 482) because of a detriment the child would otherwise
jurisdictions allow modification of custody only when there has suffer that arises from the relocation.
been a substantial change in circumstances that establishes the As Warshak (2000) noted, the Burgess decision “closely
modification is in the child’s interests. This dominant approach is echoed” (p. 83) an amica curiae brief filed in the case by
based on the plausible intuition that, other things being equal, pioneering divorce researcher Dr. Judith Wallerstein (1995;
changes in primary custody, or repeated petitions to change it, are
not good for the child and ought to be discouraged in the absence
6
of some reasonably compelling story. Applying such rules to our Sullivan v. Sullivan (1993; conditioning mother’s custody on
case would almost surely require rejecting any conditional change- not moving, even after the court determined that best interests of
of-custody order. child would not be served by change of custody to father).
210 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

this was later adapted into a journal article: Wallerstein & the impact of parental moves on the children of divorce. We
Tanke, 1996) arguing for a presumption in favor of reloca- present below new data that are far more direct than any
tion. In the absence of direct empirical evidence about the previously in the literature.
effects of parental moves on children of divorce, the brief Although evidence of short-term benefit or disruption to
attempted to infer the probable effects of relocation from the the child occasioned by the move would be useful and a
more general empirical literature on adjustment of children greatly needed addition to the literature, more compelling
of divorce. However, Warshak (2000) claimed the brief still is evidence about more-enduring child outcomes. The
contradicted “the broad consensus of professional opinion, short- and long-term impacts of a move on a child might not
based on a large body of evidence” (p. 85). He noted that the be the same. For example, moves might be initially disrup-
brief cites only 10 articles (7 from Wallerstein’s own re- tive for children but become positive or neutral in their
search group), whereas he identified a much larger pool of impact longer term, once adjustments to the move have been
relevant articles that he claimed support a far different made. In that case, sound policy might weigh the long-term
conclusion. He argued that “a comprehensive and critical effects more heavily than the move’s transitional effects.
reading of over 75 studies in the social science literature, The current study provides some evidence of the long-
including Wallerstein’s earlier reports, generally supports a term effects by examining the outcomes of young adults
policy of encouraging both parents to remain in close prox- (college students) whose parents had divorced at some time
imity to their children” (Warshak, 2000, p. 84). He con- during their childhood. For some, neither parent had moved
tended that Wallerstein has “shifted from her earlier posi- very far from the intact family’s home. We compared them,
tion” (Warshak, 1999, p. 9) in the brief. He continued: “It is on various indices of current well-being, with the students
unclear what accounts for this shift, but the scientific liter- with at least one parent who had moved more than an hour’s
ature does not justify it” (p. 9). drive away from the intact family’s home. Among the
A very recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, indices we assessed are current measures of psychological
Baures v. Lewis (2001), again cites the social science liter- and emotional adjustment, general life satisfaction, current
ature rather extensively. It concluded that “most impor- health status, the relationship to and among the parents, and
tantly, social science research links a positive outcome for perceptions about having lived “a hard life.” We also chose
children of divorce with the welfare of the primary custo- to assess the extent of financial help the students were
dian and the stability and happiness within that newly currently receiving from their parents. Financial help is
formed post-divorce household” and that recent “social sci- relatively objective, is of obvious interest to courts and
ence research has uniformly confirmed the simple principle policymakers, and could plausibly vary with moveaway
that, in general, what is good for the custodial parent is good status. Although a college student sample might introduce
for the child” (Baures v. Lewis, 2001, p. 222). But a careful certain biases as compared with a more general young adult
reading discloses that the social science articles cited in sample, as we explain below, these biases do not seem to be
Baures are (with one minor exception, Tessman, 1978) appreciable.
confined to those cited in the Wallerstein and Tanke (1996)
article. After reviewing them, the court observed that “as a Method
result of all those factors, many courts have eased the
burden on custodial parents in removal cases” (Baures v. Respondents and Procedure
Lewis, 2001, p. 224). Richards (1999), in reviewing court
decisions nationally, termed Wallerstein’s “a powerful and Surveys were administered at a large Southwestern state uni-
persuasive voice” in influencing court decisions and said her versity to nearly all students who were enrolled in introductory
viewpoints are “credited with influencing [Tropea and Bur- psychology classes in fall semester, 2001. All students present in
gess, two influential state Supreme Court decisions] and each of the 15 sections on the administration day (in the second
reversing the national trend in relocation cases” (pp. week of classes) were given a comprehensive research question-
naire sponsored by the Psychology Department, of which only a
259 –260). subset of questions relate to the current study. The 2,067 students
What is the direct social science evidence concerning responding were instructed to answer the items discussed below
children’s moves? A few studies exist reporting on the only if their parents were divorced and to skip these questions if
(generally deleterious) effects of parental relocation on non- their parents were not divorced. Students signed consent forms and
divorced children (Humke & Schaeffer, 1995; Jordan, Lara, were free to discontinue participation if they so chose, but few if
& McPartland, 1996; Levine, 1966; Stokols & Shumaker, any students did so. The 602 students who completed these ques-
1982; Tucker, Marx, & Long, 1998). The most direct evi- tions and whose parents were thus divorced represented 29% of the
dence to be found specifically with divorced children total. Although it is certainly possible, if not probable, that young
(Stolberg & Anker, 1983) showed that a large number of adult children of divorce who end up going to college at this state
“environmental changes,” one item of which was parental university are a biased subset of those whose parents divorce, it
should be noted that the above percentage appears very represen-
relocation, predicted poor outcomes with divorced children, tative. For example, Bumpass and Sweet (1989) found that almost
more so than with nondivorced children. Unfortunately, the the identical percentage, 31%, of children whose parents are mar-
effect of parental relocation was not broken out and specif- ried are expected to experience parental divorce (see also compa-
ically analyzed. rable findings in the National Center for Health Statistics, 1990,
Clearly, courts ought to have better data than was avail- Table 1–31). Thus, there is no clear evidence that the sample is
able to the Burgess and Baures tribunals on the question of self-selected and nonrepresentative of the general population of
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 211

young adults whose parents earlier divorced. Of the total, 65% vulnerability to stress-related illness (e.g., Gunnar, 1998; Heim et
indicated they were paying in-state tuition, which runs $2,488 per al., 2000; Luecken, 2000b). Luecken and Fabricius (in press)
year, and 35% indicated they were paying out-of-state tuition, found that young adult children of divorce who felt very negative
which is $10,354. Total annual college costs are estimated on the about their parents’ divorce showed higher hostility and more
official university Web site (http://www.asu.edu/admissions/ illness reports than those who felt more positive about the divorce.
whyattendasu/costs.html) to be $11,794 for in-state and $19,660 Goede and Spruijt (1996) found poorer health in young adult
for out-of-state students, respectively. It should be noted that the females from divorced families relative to intact families, but not
state is among those that do not allow their courts to require either in males. We selected nine items from the Cook–Medley Hostility
parent to pay for the cost of attending college. Thus, for students Scale (Cook & Medley, 1957) to assess trait hostility, rated from
whose parents were divorced in-state, any support either parent 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). These items correlated
provides for college expenses is voluntary. best (.71, p ⬍ .01) with the whole score in a stepwise regression.
A typical item was “I have at times had to be rough with people
who were rude or annoying.” The standardized coefficient alpha
Measures was .64. We used a one-item measure of general health, “Would
you say that in general your health is . . . ” with responses of 0 ⫽
The primary predictor variable to be analyzed was students’ poor, 1 ⫽ fair, 2 ⫽ good, 3 ⫽ very good, 4 ⫽ excellent. Perceived
response to the question regarding the moveaway status of their general global health, as measured by single items such as this one,
parents after the divorce. Specifically, respondents were asked, has been shown to be related to physical health and premature
“Which of the following best describes whether either of your mortality (e.g., Idler & Benyamini, 1997).
parents ever moved more than an hour’s drive away from what We used a one-item construct of general life satisfaction, pat-
used to be the family home?” Potential answer alternatives were terned after the “Life 3” measure (Andrews & Withey, 1976),
that (1) neither ever moved that far away, (2) the mother moved which has been found to be highly valid and predictive of other
and the respondent accompanied her, (3) the mother moved but the measures of global life satisfaction. The item read, “Generally
respondent remained with the father, (4) the father moved and the speaking, how satisfied are you with your life?,” with responses of
respondent accompanied him, or (5) the father moved but the 0 (extremely dissatisfied) to 8 (extremely satisfied).
respondent remained with the mother. To accommodate the pos- A vastly shortened version of the Personal and Emotional
sibility of both parents moving, each of the last four responses Adjustment-subscales of the Student Adaptation to College Ques-
concerned which parent moved first; for example, the exact word- tionnaire (SACQ) (Baker & Siryk, 1989) scale was included to
ing of alternative (5) was “Dad moved that far away at least once assess current adjustment levels. Specifically, the four items in-
(but mom either never did or mom moved that far away after dad quired about depressive symptoms and thought disturbances.
did); I stayed with mom.”
These items, with a 0 (applies to me very closely) to 8 (doesn’t
A series of criterion variables were measured, some as multi-
apply to me at all) response format, were chosen because in
item scales, others as one-item measures. Parental contribution to
preliminary analyses with a similar sample (Coatsworth, 2000)
college expenses was assessed by combining an item for each
they correlated best with the whole subscale score in a stepwise
parent that asked, “How much money is your [mother’s/father’s]
regression. In the current data set, the coefficient alpha was ade-
household (including [her/his] new [husband/wife] or live-in part-
quate, .69. A final item from the same subscale of the SACQ,
ner or [boy/girl]friend, if any) contributing to your total college
which inquired about worry over college expenses, lowered the
expenses (tuition, books, room and board, fees, etc.) per year?”
The potential responses included 0; 1– 8, which represented $1,000 alpha if included; accordingly, it was analyzed instead as a single-
increments (e.g., 5 ⫽ $4,001–$5,000), and 9, which represented item construct.
“more than $8,000.” The 1– 8 scores were recoded to the midpoint A vastly shortened version of the Painful Feeling About Divorce
of the interval, and the 9 score (endorsed by 15% for mother’s Scale (Laumann-Billings & Emery, 2000) was included to assess
contribution and 17% for father’s) was recoded to $9,000. Note the inner turmoil and distress from divorce. Of the 38 original items,
result thus plausibly understates total contribution. we asked 4, 2 from the Seeing Life Through the Filter of Divorce
We also included measures of hostility and general physical subscale (“I probably would be a different person if my parents
health. Parental divorce has been shown to be associated with had not gotten divorced” and “My parents’ divorce still causes
lower quality of parent– child relationships (e.g., Amato & Booth, struggles for me”) and 2 from the Loss and Abandonment subscale
1996) and marital conflict (Amato, 1993), and lower levels of (“I had a harder childhood than most people” and “My childhood
perceived parental caring and exposure to parental conflict have was cut short”). These items were asked with a 0 (strongly dis-
been associated with the development of trait hostility (e.g., agree) to 4 (strongly agree) response format used in the original.
Luecken, 2000a; Matthews, Woodall, Kenyon, & Jacob, 1996). A The coefficient alpha was marginal, .59.
large literature exists linking the psychosocial characteristic of Whether the respondent regarded his or her mother and/or father
hostility with heightened risk for cardiovascular and other diseases as a positive supporter and role model was explored with two 0
and poorer prognosis following cardiac incidents (e.g., Barefoot, (not at all) to 8 (extremely) items each, devised specially for this
Larsen, von der Lieth, & Schroll, 1995; Williams, 1997). Increased purpose. They asked, “To what extent is your [mother/father]
sympathetic reactivity to stress has been associated with hostility really there for you when you need [her/him] to be?” and “To what
and may represent the biological mechanism by which hostility extent do you feel your [mother/father] is a good role model for
increases risk of coronary heart disease (e.g., Davis, Matthews, & you?” For mothers, the “good supporter” scale alpha was .84; for
McGrath, 2000; Engebretson, & Matthews, 1992; Kamarck et al., fathers, it was .93. When they were combined (added) into the
1997). In general, parental divorce is stressful for many children “two good role models” scale, the alpha dropped to a marginal .56.
(e.g., Wolchik, Sandler, Braver, & Fogas, 1985), and evidence is As the latter was considered an effects rather than a causal indi-
mounting that stressful early childhood experiences, especially cator construct (Bollen & Lennox, 1991), the low alpha was not
with caregivers, can have lasting effects on physical health (e.g., deemed a cause for concern.
DeBellis et al., 1999) and on physiological stress reactivity and As single-item constructs, we asked, “I feel that the number of
212 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

very close friends I have is the right number for me,” “The kind of interest because of their policy implications and prevalence
women (men) I am attracted to are unfortunately not very good for were conducted for each criterion variable. The first (in
me,” and “I feel I have a problem with drinking too much or using column b) compared the group for which neither parent
substances too much.” In preliminary analyses with a similar
moved with the average of all of the moveaway groups.
sample (Coatsworth, 2000), the latter were each found to be the
best single-item correlate with the full scales of the Platonic Next, column c reports the results of a contrast comparing
Relationship Choices, Romantic Relationships Choices, and Sub- children’s outcomes when they relocated with mother with
stance Abuse subscales, respectively. The latter were all answered when all family members remained near the original family
on a 0 (applies to me very closely) to 8 (doesn’t apply to me at all) home. This contrast assesses the outcomes in the circum-
response format. In addition, we included the single item “How stances courts are most often asked to decide. Column d
well do your parents get along?” on a 0 (not at all well) to 8 reports analogous results when it was the father who moved
(extremely well) format, designed especially for this investigation. and left mother and child behind. Finally, column e com-
pares child outcomes for the most common relocation situ-
Results ations: when mother moves, taking the child with her, and
The results are presented in Table 1. In only 39% of cases when father moves, and mother and child remain behind.
did neither parent move. Of the remainder, relocating with The final two contrasts address the question of who is the
the mother and the father relocating while the child re- moving parent in the most common situation where the
mained with the mother were almost equally likely, consti- child and the mother remain together.
tuting about 25% of the overall divorced sample each. The A number of criterion variables show no differences
remaining two possibilities, remaining with the father while whatever, and these are mentioned first: Platonic relation-
the mother relocated or relocating with the father, were ship choices, romantic relationship choices, and current
comparatively rare, constituting only about 8% and 4% of substance abuse problems appeared unrelated to moveaway
cases, respectively. status. The remaining 11 criterion variables showed at least
Each criterion variable was analyzed with a one-way some significant differences between moveaway status
analysis of variance (ANOVA) (using variable-wise dele- groups. First, children enjoyed significantly more financial
tion) considering the five moveaway status situations. In support for their college expenses when there were no
addition to the overall or omnibus ANOVA F test (reported moves than in other conditions. They received over $1,800
in column a), four specific planned contrasts of special per year more in that circumstance than when they relocated

Table 1
Means for Outcome Variable, for Each of the Five Move-away Status Groups, and Significance Test Values
Move-away status group
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (a)
Neither I moved I remained I moved I remained Omnibus (b) (c) (d) (e)
Variable moved with mom with dad with dad with mom test (1) vs. (2–5) (1) vs. (2) (1) vs. (5) (2) vs. (5)
N 232 148 46 22 154
% 39 25 8 4 26
Total contribution to
college ($) 6,154 4,378 4,987 3,700 5,197 .01 .001 .001 .05 ns
Personal/emotional
adjustment 20.57 20.23 19.26 17.32 21.16 ns .06 ns ns ns
Hostilitya 11.75 11.42 13.59 13.68 12.11 .01 .05 ns ns .05
Inner turmoil and
distress from
divorce 1.66 1.96 2.23 2.19 1.98 .001 .001 .01 .001 ns
Mom good supporter 11.99 12.33 8.65 7.14 12.54 .001 .001 ns ns ns
Dad good supporter 9.94 6.66 10.89 9.68 6.03 .001 .001 .001 .001 ns
Two good role
models 21.90 19.08 19.77 16.82 18.56 .001 .001 .001 .001 ns
Parents get along 3.97 2.74 6.67 2.90 2.83 .001 .001 .001 .001 ns
Platonic relationship
choices 5.50 5.52 5.24 5.05 5.35 ns ns ns ns ns
Romantic relationship
choices 2.91 2.91 3.20 3.05 3.13 ns ns ns ns ns
Substance abuse 6.22 6.41 5.55 6.09 6.21 ns ns ns ns ns
Worry about college
expenses 4.64 4.18 4.30 3.05 3.88 .05 .01 ns .01 ns
Global healthb 2.80 2.62 2.66 2.48 2.76 ns .05 .05 ns ns
General life
satisfaction 5.80 5.78 5.47 5.05 5.81 ns .05 ns ns ns
a
Also significantly interacted with gender: Girls were more hostile and boys were less hostile when dad moved than when both parents
remained. b Also significantly interacted with gender: Girls were less healthy than boys in (2) than in (1).
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 213

with their mother (p ⬍ .0017), and about $1,000 more in that custody arrangement predicted moveaway status. Students
condition than when it was their father who moved (p ⬍ were asked to report their legal custody arrangements with
.05). Additional analyses (not shown) show that father’s the following options: joint legal custody (both parents
share of this contribution is 58%, 35%, 72%, 69%, and 41%, shared legal responsibility for making decisions for you),
respectively, in the five groups. It appears, thus, that fathers’ mother had sole legal custody (mother had legal responsi-
voluntary support for college dropped off very noticeably bility for making decisions for you), father had sole legal
when the child relocated with mother and that this loss was custody (father had legal responsibility for making deci-
not made up for by increases mother made. Fathers’ dropoff sions for you), other, and don’t know. In the 40% of families
was not as dramatic when it was the father who moved, with joint legal custody, only 48% had any moves. This rose
though this difference only approached significance (p ⬍ to 75% for the 38% of families with sole maternal legal
.07).8 custody and 69% for the 5% of families with sole paternal
Worry about college expenses showed similar but distin- legal custody.
guishable effects (lower scores imply more worry). These
young people worried more when it was their father who
moved, and only the contrast of this from the neither-moved Discussion
group was conventionally significant; the contrast of the
mother-moved group from the neither-moved group ap- Continuing policy debates over the best rules for deciding
proached significance (p ⬍ .07). relocation disputes have been hampered by a lack of direct
In terms of their current reports of their personal and data on the long-term impact of parental moves on children
emotional adjustment, the groups appeared about equal ex- of divorce. The present study begins to close this informa-
cept that in the two infrequent groups, where the youngster tion gap. It provides a window into the relative outcomes for
moved with or remained with the father, the respondent was children whose parents move more than one hour’s drive
noticeably less well adjusted. The same is true for general away from one another after their divorce. It does so by
life satisfaction. Although a similar conclusion pertains to comparing families in which neither parent ever moved
students’ reported hostility levels, there was also a signifi- away with families, in which either the mother or the father
cant larger degree of hostility evident in students whose moved with the child, as well as to families in which either
father relocated than in those who relocated with their parent moved without the child (who remained with the
mother. As the table note implies, this variable also had a nonmoving parent). We evaluated the young adult child’s
significant interaction with child’s gender: Girls were more outcomes on 14 variables representing financial and emo-
hostile whereas boys were less hostile when their father tional support from parents, personal distress and adjust-
moved than when both parents remained. ment, social relations, substance abuse, and physical health.
Results from the Inner Turmoil and Distress From Di- These assessments represented somewhat long-term out-
vorce Scale show many effects of moveaway status. Al-
comes, in that our source of data was college students’
though the neither-moved group was lowest and the two
reports about themselves and their divorced families. We
infrequent statuses were highest, both moving away with
acknowledge, of course, that findings from such a sample
mother and remaining with mother while father moved were
significantly higher in distress than both parents remaining. may misrepresent the long-term effect of relocation in a
Students had better total rapport with their parents and more general sample of divorced families, because college
saw both as role models significantly more when there had students from divorced families are probably a biased (i.e.,
been no moves. In the three most common moveaway more successful) subset of those from divorced families in
groups, rapport with mother stayed relatively constant; the general (although the rate of divorce among students’ fam-
above effect was instead due to dramatic dropoffs in their ilies was not substantially different from what has been
relationship with their father when either he moved or the estimated for the general population). It may well be, for
respondent moved with their mother.
How well the parents got along showed a somewhat 7
All contrast p values are one-tailed, because a direction was
unusual pattern: It was much higher among the 8% who predicted.
remained with their father while the mother moved. Among 8
We explored parents’ financial support for college in addi-
the remaining statuses, the parents’ reported relationship tional analyses of covariance (not shown) that controlled for par-
was significantly better when neither parent moved than in ents’ standard of living and for the type of tuition (in-state,
any of the other moveaway situations. out-of-state) that students reported paying. We measured standard
Moreover, the student’s reported level of general global of living by asking students to report on the current financial state
health significantly differed by moveaway status. Global of each of their parent’s households. The details of how we asked
health was significantly lower when the student moved with this are given in Fabricius, Braver, and Deneau (2003). The only
substantive differences were that the contrast between Groups 1
his or her mother than when neither moved. It is also and 5 no longer reached significance and the contrast between
interesting to note that this effect significantly interacted Groups 2 and 5 approached significance (p ⫽ .055). Thus, when
with gender: It was primarily the female students who equated for both of their parents’ ability to pay, students received
showed this diminution in health when they relocated away relatively more financial help for college when their fathers had
from their father with their mother. been the ones to move away than when their mothers had moved
Finally, we found that the student’s report of the legal and taken them away from their fathers.
214 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

example, that a college sample is likely to include those who sole maternal custody on a variety of measures, including
were least negatively affected by relocation.9 general adjustment, family relationships, self-esteem, emo-
We find a preponderance of negative effects associated tional and behavioral adjustment, and divorce-specific ad-
with parental moves by mother or father, with or without the justment. This suggests that future research should be aimed
child, as compared with divorced families in which neither at determining whether parental relocation in sole maternal
parent moved away. On 11 of the 14 variables, there were custody families contributes to children’s greater maladjust-
significant (or, in one case, near-significant, p ⫽ .06) dif- ment in those families.
ferences. As compared with divorced families in which The data also suggest potentially important physical
neither parent moved, students from families in which one health implications. The children of divorced parents who
parent moved received less financial support from their moved showed less favorable scores on several variables
parents (even after correcting for differences in the current (hostility, parents getting along, inner turmoil and distress,
financial conditions of the groups), worried more about that parental support, and current global health) that may suggest
support, felt more hostility in their interpersonal relations, future health problems for them. Higher hostility in college
suffered more distress related to their parents’ divorce, students has been found to predict greater coronary risk
perceived their parents less favorably as sources of emo- factors 21–23 years later (Siegler, Peterson, Barefoot, &
tional support and as role models, believed the quality of Williams, 1992), and high levels of family conflict have
their parents’ relations with each other to be worse, and been associated with poorer physical health in adolescents
rated themselves less favorably on their general physical (Mechanic & Hansell, 1989). Other research suggests that
health, their general life satisfaction, and their personal and childhood stress may have long-lasting influences on the
emotional adjustment (p ⫽ .06). In some cases, the differ- development of physiological stress response systems im-
ences, although significant, are relatively modest. But in portant in long-term disease susceptibility (DiPietro, 2000).
other cases they seem substantial. The students whose di- Poor quality parent– child relationships have been associ-
vorced parents had moved received, on average, consider- ated with higher blood pressure in undergraduate students
ably less financial help from their parents for their college (Luecken, 1998) and physical health status in middle-age
expenses. They also rated the distant parent (mother or adults (Russek, Schwartz, Bell, & Baldwin, 1998). Finally,
father) considerably less favorably as a source of emotional self-reported global health has been found to be a remark-
support, without regard to whether the distance arose from ably consistent predictor of premature mortality, even when
their move away from that parent or from that parent’s controlling for numerous specific health indicators known to
move away from them. predict mortality (Idler & Benyamini, 1997). Combined, it
In the great majority of these relocating families (82%), is reasonable to project that even greater and more serious
the move separated the child from the father, because either deficits might be found in children of relocating parents the
the mother moved away with the child or the father moved longer the term of the follow-up.
away alone.10 Table 1 shows that the effects are remarkably
similar in these two cases. The only exceptions are worry Limitations and Interpretation
about college expenses (where greater deficits are associ-
ated with the father moving), hostility (where greater defi- Although these data are far more on point in evaluating
cits are associated with the father moving for girls), and relocation policies than any previously considered by
general global health (where greater deficits are associated courts, they are of course correlational, not causal. So
with the mother moving for girls). The less common cases whereas the data tell us that a variety of poor outcomes are
(18%) in which the child and mother were separated, associated with postdivorce parental moves, they cannot
whether because the child moved with the father or the establish with anything near certainty that the moves are a
mother moved alone, similarly appear to have deficits com- contributing cause. It is certainly possible, if not likely, for
pared with the nonmoving group. example, that various preexisting (or self-selection) factors
We found that children were much less likely to experi- are responsible both for the parents’ moving and for the
ence either of their parents moving if they reported their child’s diminished outcomes. Preexisting factors that could
parents had joint legal custody as opposed to sole maternal plausibly play this role include a low level of functioning
legal custody. The rates were 48% versus 75%. (However, for one or both parents, the inability of one or both parents
caution is needed here because the custody arrangement we to put the child’s needs ahead of his or her own, and high
used is the student’s report, rather than examination of
official records. There is thus the distinct possibility that
9
these reports inaccurately represent the true legal custody We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
10
arrangement in the divorce decree. Indeed, it is plausible When children moved with the mother, students reported she
that the accuracy of the report is confounded with move- was either the sole legal custodian or a joint legal custodian 87%
of the time. When they moved with the father, he was either sole
away status; for example, that those who move with their or joint custodian 67% of the time. When the father moved without
mother wrongly infer that their mother must have had sole the child, he was a custodian only 31% of the time, and when the
custody.) It is noteworthy that a recent meta-analysis mother moved without the child, she was a custodian 57% of the
(Bauserman, 2002) of the published and unpublished re- time. Students reported “some other” legal custodial arrangement
search on custody arrangements concluded that children in or that they didn’t know what their legal custodial arrangement
joint custody arrangements are better adjusted than those in was 12%, 24%, 18%, and 17% of the time, respectively.
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 215

levels of premove conflict between the parents (indeed, our the adverse outcomes that we found. We are not aware of
finding that nonmoving parents are reported by their chil- evidence that would support the presumption that moving
dren to have significantly better relationships with each families are disproportionately so dysfunctional, although
other is plausibly interpreted with such a causal sequence). we are currently attempting to collect further data on this
Because research designs using random assignment to probe issue. For now, we are content to treat alternative (d) as less
the causal connections are precluded by the nature of the likely than the other explanations of our data.
subject matter, causation can be addressed only with longi- Alternative (c) appears to us the most likely explanation
tudinal (or perhaps retrospective) data that control or equate of the data. In any event, it seems more likely than alterna-
for such potential selection factors. Collecting such longi- tive (b) (that selection accounts for all of the poorer out-
tudinal or retrospective data should be high on the research comes experienced by children whose divorced parents
agenda for this topic. move), because of the repeated associations found, in a
In the absence of such longitudinal data, one must con- variety of contexts, between the amount of time spent with
sider several alternative explanations for our results: (a) that the noncustodial parent and the quality of the parent–adult
moving per se tends to be harmful for children, (b) that child relationship. For example, Lye, Klepinger, Hyle, and
families with characteristics that are harmful for children Nelson (1995) reported that “the longer the adult child lived
also tend to move, or (c) that both (a) and (b) are true. It is apart from the parent, the weaker are relations with the
also logically possible (d) that parental moves are actually noncustodial parents” (p. 261). And it has been found that
beneficial for children but tend to be undertaken primarily the less children saw their fathers while growing up, the less
by families with characteristics that are harmful for chil- fathers contributed to their college expenses (Fabricius,
dren, so that while the children of divorced parents who Braver, & Deneau, 2003) and the less close were the fa-
move are, on balance, worse off than the children of di- thers’ relationships with their adult children (Deneau, 1999;
vorced parents who do not, their disadvantage is smaller Fabricius, in press; Luecken & Fabricius, in press). Finally,
than it might otherwise have been had they not moved. Note students report that both they and their divorced fathers
that the data do appear to exclude what might otherwise generally wanted more time together (Fabricius & Hall,
seem an additional alternative, that divorced parents who 2000). The overall pattern thus seems consistent with a
are inclined to move away from one another are not, on causal model in which custodial parent moves, even those
average, more risky for their children than other divorced made for good reasons, thwart the long-term relationship
families, and that the parental move improves the children’s with the parent left behind, which in turn will in some
situation. Had this possibility been valid, the moving groups respects impair the child.
would have had superior outcomes rather than the inferior Ultimately, however, our data cannot establish with cer-
ones found. This final possibility is excluded whether one tainty that moves cause children substantial harm. They do
focuses on parental moves in general or looks separately at allow us to say, however, that there is no empirical basis on
moves by custodial parents or noncustodial parents. which to justify a legal presumption that a move by a
That exclusion offers some help to policymakers in this custodial parent to a destination she plausibly believes will
area. General data on average effects cannot decide indi- improve her life will necessarily confer benefits on the
vidual cases, of course. But the data can help the rulemaker, children she takes with her.
judicial or legislative, because it suggests that courts would As noted earlier, some courts (e.g., Burgess, Baures),
be mistaken to assume, in the absence of contrary evidence, relying on Wallerstein and Tanke’s (1996) summary of the
that children benefit from moving with their custodial parent social science literature to the effect that “a close, sensitive
to a new location that is distant from their other parent relationship with the . . . custodial parent” had “centrality”
whenever the custodial parent wishes to make the move. (p. 311) and that the relationship with the noncustodial
Putting the point in legal terminology, the burden of per- parent could therefore be discounted, have recently arrived
suasion in relocation disputes, on the question of whether at the opposite conclusion: that “whatever is good for the
the move is in the child’s interests, should probably lie with custodial parent is good for the child” (Baures v. Lewis,
the custodial parent who seeks to relocate rather than with 2001, p. 222). However, Warshak (2000) has argued that
the objecting parent. Decisions like Baures v. Lewis (2001) Wallerstein miscast the voluminous social science litera-
and In re the Marriage of Burgess (1996) reach the opposite ture, and certainly the matter appears more nuanced than
conclusion because they appear to accept the proposition such judicial language suggests. For example, although
that children are aided by any move that their custodial Amato and Gilbreth (1999) found, on the basis of their
parent believes desirable. The current data suggest, how- meta-analysis of 63 studies of divorcing children, no sig-
ever, that this proposition can be true only if alternative (d) nificant association between the frequency of father– child
is the explanation for our data—that parental moves arise contact and child outcomes, they also found evidence that
disproportionately among divorced families that are so dys- better outcomes for children, in both academic achievement
functional that their children remain worse off than children and frequency of behavioral problems, are associated with
of other divorced families, even after reaping the move’s authoritative parenting by noncustodial fathers. Moreover,
presumed benefits. The greater the benefit one presumes is they found that more recent studies have found more ben-
conferred by the average move, the greater the family dys- efits of noncustodial parent contact than older studies, sug-
function one must presume on average precedes it, in order gesting that “noncustodial fathers might be enacting the
to explain how the move’s purported benefit is concealed in parent role more successfully now than in the past, with
216 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

beneficial consequences for children” (Amato, 2000, p. for requiring a man (or a woman) to nurture and love a
1280). On the other hand, it also appears that noncustodial child.
fathers, at least in past decades, did not usually engage in This reality means that the primary tool available to
authoritative parenting, because that kind of relationship is courts that believe a proposed move is not in the child’s
more difficult to maintain for a parent who does not live interests is the strategic use of a conditional change-of-
with the child (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000); custody order. Such orders have disadvantages. They are of
nonetheless, the child’s relocation to a considerable distance no value in restraining moves by noncustodial parents,
from the noncustodial parent may make such a relationship which appear from our data generally as harmful to the child
not merely more difficult but essentially impossible. More as custodial parent moves, and (as explained in the intro-
recently, Kelly and Lamb (2003) concluded that “there is duction) their use may seem doctrinally inconsistent with
substantial evidence that children are more likely to attain the prevailing view that nonconsensual changes in primary
their psychological potential when they are able to develop custody are disfavored, and perhaps ordered only when
and maintain meaningful relationships with both of their needed to protect the child from some demonstrable detri-
parents, whether or not the two parents live together” (p. ment in the existing custodial arrangement. For these rea-
196). sons, recent legal trends discourage their use, as recounted
Ironically, cases like Baures v. Lewis (2001) are also in the introduction.
inconsistent with Wallerstein’s own conclusions, in publi- Yet perhaps our data suggest a reconsideration of this
cations that precede her brief in In re the Marriage of trend. From the perspective of the child’s interests, there
Burgess (1996), as Warshak has shown. For example, in may be real value in discouraging moves by custodial
1980 Wallerstein stated that parents, at least in cases in which the child enjoys a good
relationship with the other parent and the move is not
our findings regarding the centrality of both parents to the prompted by the need to otherwise remove the child from a
psychological health of children and adolescents alike leads
[sic] us to hold that, where possible, divorcing parents should detrimental environment. And other recent data (Braver,
be encouraged and helped to shape postdivorce arrangements Cookston, & Cohen, 2002) suggest that these conditional
which permit and foster continuity in the children’s relations orders would in fact prevent the move in up to two thirds of
with both parents. (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, p. 311). the cases.
In sum, recent judicial conclusions concerning the impact of The dilemma resulting from the modern trend is well
the noncustodial father’s relationship with the child on the exemplified in Marriage of Bryant (2001), a California
child’s development were not entirely consistent with the appeals court case applying In re the Marriage of Burgess
psychological evidence, nor even with the prelitigation con- (1996). At their divorce, the mother, who had always been
clusions of the researcher on whose description of that the children’s primary parent, sought primary custody and
evidence they relied. The current study adds to that discrep- announced her intention to move with them from Santa
ancy because its comparison of children of divorced fami- Barbara to New Mexico, where her family lived. Since the
lies that did and did not move provides no evidence that the parents’ separation, the father had seen the children, 6 and
child is benefited by moving away with the custodial parent. 9 years of age, three or four times weekly, as well as talking
with them daily on the phone. All agreed that his relation-
ship with the children was important to them as well as to
Implications for Application and Public Policy him, but all also agreed that the mother was a good parent
with a close emotional bond with her children. Father
We must note that no data can free the judicial system earned a good income and had the financial capacity to fly
from the difficult problem of finding a workable and accept- regularly to New Mexico to visit the children, but he could
able remedy for the parent who reasonably objects to the not move there without considerable financial sacrifice. It
other parent’s move. The problem arises from the law’s seemed clear that the episodic paternal contact that would
understandable resistance to orders that directly restrict a be possible if the children moved to New Mexico would be
parent’s right to move. A court may change the custodial a poor substitute for the daily involvement in his children’s
arrangement because of the move, effectively controlling life that the father maintained in Santa Barbara. Mother was
the child’s mobility by moving primary custody to the the beneficiary of a trust fund and had no financial pressure
parent who does not move, but it will not bar the initial requiring her move, which the court’s appointed expert
custodial parent from moving by herself. For the same described as motivated by her desire to “escape a failed
reason, it will not bar a noncustodial parent from moving, marriage.” Her move to New Mexico was not badly inten-
even if the move effectively precludes that parent from tioned, although a bad parenting decision according to both
exercising his visitation rights, and even if it were persuaded the court’s expert and the parties’ therapist. The trial judge
that the child suffers detriment from that parent’s move. In observed:
extreme cases, of course, the law can terminate the parental
status of a reluctant parent. The man who, for example, There are two realistically possible scenarios in this case. The
moves far from his child, never sees or acknowledges her, court could conditionally grant physical custody of the chil-
dren to the father (with liberal visitation to the mother) if the
and does not contribute to her support may have his parental mother moves away, with joint physical custody if the mother
rights terminated, freeing the child for adoption by the remains in Santa Barbara. In all likelihood, the court could
mother’s new husband. But the law has no effective method force the joint-physical-custody scenario, since it is unlikely
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 217

that mother will move away if it means she thereby becomes Austin, W. G. (2000b). Relocation law and the threshold of harm:
the non-custodial parent. This would be the optimum scenario Integrating legal and behavioral perspectives. Family Law Quar-
for the best interests of the children, since it would preserve terly, 34, 63– 82.
their lifelong social structure in the Santa Barbara area with Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1989). Student Adaptation to College
very successful schooling, church, sports, paternal extended
family and maternal aunt and would maximize the children’s Questionnaire manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Ser-
frequent and continuing contact with both parents. (Marriage vices.
of Bryant, 2001, p. 797) Barefoot, J. C., Larsen, S., von der Lieth, L., & Schroll, M. (1995).
Hostility, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, and mortality
But the trial judge nonetheless concluded he was com- in a sample of older Danish men and women. American Journal
pelled by Burgess to deny the father’s petition for the of Epidemiology, 142, 477– 484.
conditional change of custody order, and “select what is Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91;770 A.2d 214 (N.J. 2001).
next best in the children’s interest”—maintaining primary Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus
custody with the mother in New Mexico. The intermediate sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
court of appeals, also bound by Burgess, agreed and af- Family Psychology, 16, 91–102.
firmed the trial judge: Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on mea-
surement. A structural equation perspective. Psychological
Having found that [mother] was not acting in bad faith and Methods, 110, 305–314.
that it is in the best interests of the children for custody to be Braver, S. L., Cookston, J. T., & Cohen, B. R. (2002). Experiences
with [her], the trial court was bound to rule as it did. We agree
with the dissent that Burgess is disquieting because in cases of family law attorneys with current issues in divorce practice.
such as this one it leaves the children with the second best Family Relations, 51, 325–334.
solution. (Marriage of Bryant, 2001, p. 797) Braver, S. L., Hipke, K. N., Ellman, I. M., & Sandler, I. N. (in
press). Strengths-building public policy for children of divorce.
Clearly, no court should issue a conditional change-of- In G. Leadbetter, K. Maton, C. H. Schellenbach, & A. S. Solarz,
custody order if it believes that any custodial change would (Eds.), Strengths based public policies. Washington, DC: Amer-
yield important disadvantages for the child. But on the other ican Psychological Association.
hand, it may also be poor policy to insist that such orders be Braver, S. L., & O’Connell, E. (1998). Divorced dads: Shattering
denied unless the noncustodial parent shows that the current the myths. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
custodial parent’s home has some detrimental impact on the Bruch, C. S., & Bowermaster, J. M. (1996). The relocation of
child, as is often required for ordinary petitions to change a children and custodial parents: Public policy, past and present.
child’s primary custody. Certainly, if further studies were to Family Law Quarterly, 30, 245–303.
support the causal inference—were to show that moves by Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). Children’s experience in
single-parent families: Implications of cohabitation and marital
custodial parents have a substantial harmful causal impact
transitions. Family Planning Perspectives, 21, 256 –260.
on their children—then the child’s separate interests would Coatsworth, D. (2000). Emotional, instrumental and financial sup-
seem to require this reconsideration. port by divorced parents of their college aged children. Unpub-
lished honors thesis, Arizona State University.
References Cook, W., & Medley, D. (1957). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-
virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38,
Alfieri v. Alfieri. 733 P. 2d 4 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). 414 – 418.
Amato, P. (1993). Childrens’ adjustment to divorce: Theories, Cooper v. Roe, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 299 (Cal. App. 1993).
hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Davis, M. C., Matthews, K. A., & McGrath, C. E. (2000). Hostile
Family, 55, 23–28. attitudes predict elevated vascular resistance during interpersonal
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and stress in men and women. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 17–25.
children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269 –1287. DeBellis, M. D., Baum, A. S., Birmaher, B., Keshavan, M. S.,
Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce Eccard, C. H., Boring, A. M., et al. (1999). Developmental
and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and the
traumatology: Part I. Biological stress systems. Biological Psy-
Family, 58, 356 –365.
chiatry, 45, 1259 –1270.
Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and
Deneau, K. A. (1999). Older children’s relationships with their
children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 61, 557–573. parents post divorce and parents’ flexibility with visitation
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. (1998). American schedules. Unpublished honor’s thesis, Arizona State University.
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers proposed model relocation DiPietro, J. A. (2000). Baby and the brain: Advances in child
act: An act relating to the relocation of the principal residence of development. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 455– 471.
the child. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Ellman, I. M., Kurtz, P., & Scott, E. (1998). Family law: Cases,
Lawyers, 15, 1–24. text, problems. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing.
American Law Institute. (2002). Principles of the law of family Elrod, L. D., & Spector, R. G. (1997). A review of the year in
dissolution: Analysis and recommendations. Dayton, OH: Lexis- family law: Of welfare reform, child support, and relocation.
Nexis. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 765– 809.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of Engebretson, T. O., & Matthews, K. A. (1992). Dimensions of
well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: hostility in men, women, and boys: Relationships to personality
Plenum. and cardiovascular responses to stress. Psychosomatic Medicine,
Austin, W. G. (2000a). A forensic psychology model of risk 54, 311–323.
assessment for child custody relocation law. Family and Concil- Everett v. Everett, 660 So.2d 599, 601 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
iation Courts Review, 38, 192–207. Fabricius, W. V. (in press). Listening to children of divorce: New
218 BRAVER, ELLMAN, AND FABRICIUS

findings on living arrangements, college support and relocation and adult cortisol responses to stress. Psychology and Health, 15,
that rebut Wallerstein, Lewis and Blakeslee. Family Relations. 841– 851.
Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., & Deneau, K. (2003). Divorced Luecken, L. J., & Fabricius, W. V. (in press). Hostility, somatic
parents’ financial support of their children’s college expenses. symptoms, and illness reports in adult children from divorced
Family Court Review, 41, 224 –241. and intact families. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
Fabricius, W. V., & Hall, J. (2000). Young adults’ perspectives on Lye, D. N., Klepinger, D. H., Hyle P. D., & Nelson, A. (1995).
divorce: Living arrangements. Family and Conciliation Courts Childhood living arrangements and adult children’s relations
Review, 38, 446 – 461. with their parents. Demography, 32, 261–280.
Ford, C. (1997). Untying the relocation knot: Recent developments Maeda v. Maeda, 794 P.2d 268 (Haw. Ct. App. 1990).
and a model for change. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Marriage of Bryant, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 791 (App. 2001).
7, 1–53. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P. R., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).
Gindes, M. (1998). The psychological effects of relocation for Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of
children of divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Mat- Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173–1191.
rimonial Lawyers, 15, 119 –148. Matthews, K. A., Woodall, K. L., Kenyon, K., & Jacob, T. (1996).
Goede, M., & Spruijt, E. (1996). Effects of parental divorce on Negative family environment as a predictor of boys’ future status
youth unemployment on adolescent health. Patient Education on measures of hostile attitudes, interview behavior, and anger
and Counseling, 29, 269 –276. expression. Health Psychology, 15, 30 –37.
Gould v. Miller, 488 N.W.2d 42, 43 (N.D. 1992). Mechanic, D., & Hansell, S. (1989). Divorce, family conflict, and
Gunnar, M. R. (1998). Quality of early care and buffering of adolescents’ well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
neuroendocrine stress reactions: Potential effects on the devel- 30, 106 –116.
oping human brain. Preventive Medicine, 27, 208 –211. Meyer, D. R., & Garasky, S. (1993). Custodial fathers: Myths,
Heim, C., Newport, D. J., Heit, S., Graham, Y. P., Wilcox, M., realities, and child support policy. Journal of Marriage and the
Bonsall, R., et al. (2000). Pituitary-adrenal and autonomic re- Family, 55, 73– 89.
sponses to stress in women after sexual and physical abuse in Miller, S. (1995). Whatever happened to the “best interests” anal-
childhood. JAMA, 284, 592–597. ysis in New York relocation cases? Pace Law Review, 15,
Hensgens v. Hensgens, 653 So.2d 48, 56 –57 (La. Ct. App. 1995). 339 –389.
Holder v. Polanski, 544 A.2d 852, 856 (N.J. 1988). Moore v. Moore, 585 So.2d 66, 68 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).
Humke, C., & Schaeffer, C. (1995). Relocation: A review of the National Center for Health Statistics. (1990). Vital statistics of the
effects of residential mobility on children and adolescents. Psy- United States, 1988: Vol. 1. Natality (DHHS Publication No.
chology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 32, 16 –24. PHS-90-1100). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Idler, F. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mor- Office.
tality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37. (1974). Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act §§ 101–309, 9A(1)
In re Carlson, 280 Cal.Rptr. 840, 844, 946 (Cal. App. 1991). U.L.A. 159 §§ 310 –506, 9A(2) U.L.A. 1 (1988 & Supp. 1999).
In re the Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d 473 (Cal. 1996). Nord, C. W., & Zill, N. (1997). Non-custodial parents’ participa-
Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 823 P.2d 299, 305 (N.M. 1991). tion in their children’s lives. Child Support Report, 19, 1–2.
Jordan, W. J., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the Richards, J. L. (1999). Children’s rights vs. parents’ rights: A
causes of early drop-out among race-ethnic and gender groups. proposed solution to the custodial relocation conundrum. New
Youth & Society, 28, 62–94. Mexico Law Review, 29, 245–287.
Kamarck, T. W., Everson, S. A., Kaplan, G. A., Manuck, S. B., Rotman, A. S., Tompkins, R., Schwartz, L. L., & Samuels, M. D.
Jennings, J. R., Salonen, R., & Salonen, J. T. (1997). Exagger- (2000). Reconciling parents’ and children’s interests in reloca-
ated blood pressure responses during mental stress are associated tion: In whose best interest? Family and Conciliation Courts
with enhanced carotid atherosclerosis in middle-aged Finnish Review, 38, 341–367.
men. Circulation, 96, 3842–3848. Russek, L. G., Schwartz, G. E., Bell, I. R., & Baldwin, C. M.
Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Developmental issues in (1998). Positive perceptions of parental caring are associated
relocation cases involving young children: When, whether, and with reduced psychiatric and somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic
how? Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 193–205. Medicine, 60, 654 – 657.
LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151, 162– 63 (Minn. Ct. App. Sample, T., & Reiger, T. (1998). Relocation standards and consti-
2000). tutional considerations. Journal of the American Academy of
Lamb v. Wenning, 600 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. 1992). Matrimonial Lawyers, 15, 229 –243.
Lane v. Schenk, 614 A.2d 786, 790 –92 (Vt. 1992). Shear, L. E. (1996). Life stories, doctrines, and decision making:
Laumann-Billings, L., & Emery, R.E. (2000). Distress among Three high courts decide the move-away dilemma. Family and
young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychol- Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 439 – 458.
ogy, 14, 671– 687. Siegler, I. C., Peterson, B. L., Barefoot, J. C., & Williams, R. B.
Levine, M. (1966). Residential change and school adjustment. (1992). Hostility during late adolescence predicts coronary risk
Community Mental Health Journal, 2, 61– 69. factors at mid-life. American Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 146 –
Lozinak v. Lozinak, 569 A.2d 353 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). 154.
Luecken, L. J. (1998). Childhood attachment and loss experiences Sobie, M. (1995). Whatever happened to the “best interests” anal-
affect adult cardiovascular and cortisol function. Psychosomatic ysis in New York relocation cases? A response. Pace Law
Medicine, 60, 765–772. Review, 15, 685–701.
Luecken, L. J. (2000a). Attachment and loss experiences during Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1982). The psychological context
childhood are associated with adult hostility, depression, and of residential mobility and well-being. Journal of Social Issues,
social support. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49, 85–91. 38, 149 –171.
Luecken, L. J. (2000b). Parental caring and loss during childhood Stolberg, A. L., & Anker, J. M. (1983). Cognitive and behavioral
 SPECIAL ISSUE: CHILDREN AND RELOCATION AFTER DIVORCE 219

changes in children resulting from divorce and consequent envi- Wallerstein, J. S., & Tanke, T. J. (1996). To move or not to move:
ronmental changes. Journal of Divorce, 7, 23–32. Psychological and legal considerations in the relocation of chil-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 594 N.Y.S.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). dren following divorce. Family Law Quarterly, 30, 305–332.
Taylor v. Taylor, 849 S.W.2d 319, 321 (Tenn. 1993). Warshak, R. A. (1999). Relocation litigation and children’s best
Terry, E. J., Proctor, K. K., Phelan, P. C., & Womack, J. L. (1998). interests: Revisiting Burgess. State Bar of Texas Section Report:
Relocation: Moving forward or moving backward? Journal of Family Law, 4, 8 –12.
the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 15, 167–228. Warshak, R. A. (2000). Social science and children’s best interests
Tessman, L. H. (1978). Children of parting parents. New York: in relocation cases: Burgess revisited. Family Law Quarterly, 34,
Jason Aronson. 83–113.
Tropea v. Tropea, 665 N.E.2d 145, 148 (N.Y. 1996). White v. White, 437 Pa.Super. 446, 650 A.2d 110, 113 (Pa. Super.
Troxel v. Granville, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000). Ct. 1994).
Tucker, J., Marx, J., & Long, L. (1998). “Moving on”: Residential Williams, R. B. (1997). The role of psychosocial factors in human
mobility and children’s school lives. Sociology of Education, 71, disease: Lessons from animal models. Acta Physiologica Scan-
111–129. dinavia Supplement, 640, 100 –102.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000, January). Current Population Wis. Stat. Ann. § 767.327 (3) (c) (1) (West Supp. 1998).
Reports P20 –520: Geographical mobility. Washington, DC: Wolchik, S., Sandler, I. N., Braver, S. T., & Fogas, B. (1985).
U.S. Government Printing Office. Events of parental divorce: Stressfulness ratings by children,
Wallerstein, J. S., (1995). Amica Curiae Brief of Dr. Judith S. parents, and clinicians. American Journal of Community Psy-
Wallerstein, Ph.D., Filed in Cause No. S046116, In re the Mar- chology, 14, 59 –74.
riage of Burgess, Supreme Court of the State of California, Dec.
7, 1995. Received December 21, 2001
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J.B. (1980) Surviving the breakup. Revision received May 23, 2002
New York: Basic Books. Accepted July 11, 2002 䡲