Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jaime Taormina Bisbing, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III, Defendant-Respondent
August 8, 2017230 N.J. 309
Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the statutory "cause" inquiry for interstate child relocation under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 must be decided by a best‑interests analysis for all contested relocations where the parents share legal custody, abandoning the two‑part Baures test. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded for a plenary hearing on the best‑interests factors, rejecting the notion that the parties’ settlement agreement waives the relocating parent’s right to judicial review.
Holding
- What standard governs the determination of “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 for interstate child relocation when the parents share legal custody?. The trial court must determine “cause” by applying a best‑interests of the child analysis, weighing the factors in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 and any other relevant considerations, and the Baures two‑part test is abandoned for all contested relocations involving shared legal custody.
- Does a relocation provision in a settlement agreement waive the relocating parent’s right to a judicial determination of “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2?. The settlement agreement does not waive the relocating parent’s right to a judicial determination; the parent must still demonstrate “cause” under the best‑interests analysis, and any modification of the custody arrangement requires a showing of changed circumstances.
- Does the application of N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 infringe the relocating parent’s constitutional right to interstate travel?. No. N.J.S.A. 9:2-2’s limitation on relocating a child does not infringe the parent’s constitutional right to travel because the statute regulates the child’s relocation, not the parent’s personal movement.
Docket A-2-16
Cited authorities
- 30 Fam. L.Q. 305
- 34 Fam. L.Q. 83
- 40 Fam. L.Q. 281