There may come a time after your divorce, that you decide you and your child need a fresh start. New home, new city, just… new. While this is certainly understandable, custody is very complicated. Furthermore, it becomes even more complicated when one parent considers relocation with the child . The court, as it should, considers the best interest of the child in this scenario. However, how do they determine this? For one case in particular, Maxie Burgess v. Brooke Arnold, the court did exactly that…
Relocation and Child Custody: Maxie Burgess v. Brooke Arnold
The couple mentioned above, Burgess and Arnold, were together and had a son until the child was eighteen months old. Then, the parents separated and moved on with their lives. In doing so, the mother of the child remarried to a man who lived in Florida— quite a hike from South Carolina. Therefore, the mother planned to move, and the father filed for custody of the child. Upon going to court, the judge granted joint custody to the parents, as they were both fit to fulfill their role.
This seems fair… right? In short, it does. However, what became tricky is that the court awarded joint custody if both parents were in one state. However, if the mother moved, the father would be granted primary custody. The catch was, if she returned to live in South Carolina once again— she would receive primary custody.
Both parents appeal
In this case, both parents appealed on separate grounds. The mother files her appeal on the grounds that the court was penalizing her for relocation, and changing the circumstances of custody immediately upon finding that the couple was using a joint custody agreement before filing. The father, files his appeal due to the fact that the court would reinstate primary custody status to the mother upon her return, instead of going before the court to provide evidence of such. In short, both parents refused the terms. So, the case went to appellate court.
The case moves on to appellate court
The first issue to tackle in appeals court was the issue of joint custody. The mother argues that she should have sole custody. Furthermore, that the court was incorrect in assuming that the parents were practicing joint custody previously.
While the appellate court agreed that the family court was correct in considering their agreement joint custody, they decided the best interest of the child was in providing the mother with sole custody. The court stated that the child was subject to stress, due to varying parenting styles and that the mother was more attentive to the child’s emotional needs, as well as his ADD. Therefore, the mother got precisely what she wanted— sole custody.
As for the father?
The record considers the father to be ‘close-minded’ on these issues. The court also perceives the child as ‘fearful of his father’— even though he wished to spend time with him. Furthermore, the father was recording conversations between himself and his son about the actions of the mother, which ‘was troublesome’ to the court. In short, the mother agreed to generous shared time with the father, and according to the court, was more open to the needs of the child. Therefore, the father lost out completely and the relocation moved forward.
Custody arrangements between separated parents always comes down to what the court considers the best interest of the child
So, if one parent can better prove that they have the best interest of the child in any scenario, they have a better chance of essentially getting what they want out of the court proceedings. Every case is different, and every court is different too. So, finding your best representation possible is a step one. We offer our condolences for this trying time, and extend our services if you may need them. Custody battles are difficult, but you shouldn’t go at them alone.