The adage “there are two sides to every coin” can apply to contrastive conditions in many contexts, including family law disputes.
Especially matters involving divorce and the kids.
Take parental relocation, for example. We note on our website at the Little Rock law firm of Robertson, Oswalt, Nony & Associates that “complications may arise” when a custodial parent seeks to move to a distant location with a couple’s children. Although he or she might offer impassioned reasons for doing so, a noncustodial ex-spouse can often argue with equal force that a court should deny a relocation attempt.
That is unsurprising. Kids are precious cargo. Matters that centrally involve them are often at the heart of especially complex and trying family law situations.
Arkansas courts overseeing relocation petitions are similar to other tribunals across the country in applying a “children’s best interests” standard to disputes.
Generally speaking, a move will be allowed if a custodial parent has solid grounds for relocating (e.g., a higher paying job or opportunity for the kids to be closer to an extended family and attend better schools) and the move will likely benefit the kids. Conversely, a petition might be denied if a court believes that an attempted relocation is for bad-faith reasons and would undermine relations between children and their noncustodial parent.
The broad-based and multiple factors that an Arkansas court might likely focus in on to make a relocation determination can obviously invite argument on both sides. An involved parent that either seeks to relocate or objects to a move might reasonably want to secure the proven advocacy of experienced legal counsel to strongly promote a particular view.