Some of the most difficult cases for family law judges to decide are move-away child custody cases, which is when the custodial parent seeks to relocate with his or her child to another geographic area. The requested destination could be a 60-mile move or a 6,000-plus-mile move. After separation, when a custodial parent decides to move, often heart-wrenching decisions have to be made about where the children will live and to what extent the other parent will maintain a relationship with them.
If a court grants the move, the non-custodial parent will no longer be able to participate in the day-to-day life of her or his child — missing out on birthdays, school events, helping with homework and extra-curricular activities. On the other hand, if the court denies the custodial parent’s move-away request and the custodial parent has no choice but to move away from his or her current geographic location, then the child will be separated from the custodial parent. In either situation, the child loses.
Our increasingly mobile society and the economy have contributed to an upswing in move-away(s). Many times a divorced/separated parent wants or needs to return to her or his home state or country to be able to take advantage of a family support system. Often a parent is going to where a job or remarriage necessitates the move. It is the exception rather than the rule that the parents can agree on one parent moving and the resulting changes in timeshare, which usually means that the non-moving party has the child during the majority of holidays and vacation. However, this can prove to be problematic when very young children are involved and they cannot spend significant time away from the other parent. The majority of the time these situations become emotional powder kegs and the parties can’t agree on anything, let alone the over-arching concern, i.e., what is in the child’s best interest.
In these cases, it is up to the court to decide whether to allow the relocation with the children. States have different rules surrounding move-away custody, but in general the best interest of the child is the gold standard and this will be the focus of the court in making its ruling. In California and other states with permissive move-away laws, the burden of proof will be on the non-custodial parent (usually those parents who spend less than 35 percent of the time with the children) to prove that the move will be harmful to the child. Conversely, states with more restrictive laws on move-away(s) may place a higher burden on the custodial parent to show that the move will be in the best of interest of the child.
Many times non-custodial parents are victims of a "Move Away Parent" who either doesn't value their children’s relationships with the non-custodial parent, by placing their own needs above those of their children, or by using geography as a method of driving the other parent out of their children’s lives. Whatever the motives are move-away(s) are expensive — both emotionally and financially. Non-custodial parents will do almost anything to stop them to protect and preserve the parent/child relationship.
"Virtual visitation", as the name implies, is a form of child visitation that requires the use of technology to keep in contact with a child -- such as through email, video conferencing, video mail, and instant messaging – typically as part of a parenting agreement or child custody order. In one highly publicized case, a custodial parent said that virtual visitation allowed her to "feel more comfortable that I'm not destroying my son's relationship with his father" by deciding to move away. It seems unlikely that, were the situations reversed, she would be happy with biweekly virtual visitations.
Virtual visitation laws, also referred to as "internet visitation" or "electronic visitation," are a growing phenomenon. Several states, including Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Carolina, and Florida, have enacted laws allowing courts to order virtual visitation in custody matters. Legislatures in many other states are considering passing virtual visitation laws. Parents and children can engage in any number of activities together over the Internet, in real time, or individually as time permits. All that is required is a basic Internet package, which comes preloaded in most computers purchased today.
Virtual visitation opens up endless opportunities for interference by custodial parents. Today many divorced dads endure the heartache of being told that they cannot see their children because they always have "dentist appointments" or "birthday parties to attend" during their scheduled visitation times. In the era of virtual visitation, there will be an inordinately large number of technical problems with custodial parents' web cameras, and the repair shops will be operating at an unusually slow pace.
It will be virtually impossible for non-custodial parents with young children to do video conferencing without the presence and assistance of the custodial parent. If the custodial parent doesn't cooperate in making the video conferencing available to the child then the non-custodial parent will suffer from access and parenting time denial.
However, it is doubtful that many judges will be willing to hold a move away parent in contempt of court for not fixing their computer.