David Stills v. Amber Stills — Hannah, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent argued that the relocation presumption favors the custodial parent's right to travel, but does not determine the child's best interests or establish an immutable burden of proof. It maintained that the parties could waive or alter the presumption by agreement, while the circuit court remained responsible for deciding the children's best interests. The dissent would reverse and remand for a new analysis. Justice Brown, dissenting, agreed that the parties could contractually assign Amber the burden of proving that relocation served the children's best interests.