31may01...1144h

2002 SESSION

01-0299

05/10

HOUSE BILL 386

COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law

ANALYSIS

This bill establishes criteria governing the relocation of the principal residence of a child and allocates the burden of proof between the custodial and non-custodial parent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

31may01...1144h

01-0299

05/10

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Two

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

119:1 New Section; Annulment, Divorce and Separation; Custody; Relocation of the Principal Residence of a Minor Child. Amend RSA 458 by inserting after section 23 the following new section:

458:23-a Relocation of the Principal Residence of a Child.

I. This section shall apply to relocation of the principal residence of a child if the existing custody order or other enforceable agreement between the parties does not expressly govern the relocation issue. This section shall not apply if the relocation results in the child moving closer to the non-custodial parent or to any location within the child's current school district.

II. The custodial parent, prior to relocating, shall provide reasonable notice to the non-custodial parent. For purposes of this section, 60 days notice shall be presumed to be reasonable unless other factors are found to be present.

III. At the request of either the custodial or non-custodial parent, the court shall hold a hearing on the relocation issue.

IV. The custodial parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

(a) The relocation is for a legitimate purpose; and

(b) The proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose.

V. If the burden of proof established in paragraph IV is met, the burden shifts to the non-custodial parent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed relocation is not in the best interest of the child.

VI. If the court has issued a temporary order authorizing temporary relocation, the court shall not give undue weight to that temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final decision.

VII. The court, in reaching its final decision, shall not consider whether the custodial parent seeking to relocate has declared that he or she will not relocate if relocation of the child is denied.

119:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

(Approved: May 8, 2002)

(Effective Date: July 7, 2002)