Vol. L · No. I ·FOL. LI·Family LAW

The case-type framing. Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017) changed NJ relocation law. Before Bisbing, the N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 “good-cause” relocation framework operated under the Baures v. Lewis burden, which favored the moving parent. Bisbing discarded Baures in favor of the best-interests-of-the-child standard set out at N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. The relocation question is now decided on the same factor analysis that decides custody itself: 14 factors weighing parents’ fitness, children’s needs, stability, the child’s preference (where age-appropriate), and other relevant considerations. This page describes how Avery & Avery has approached relocation matters in the Bergen Family Part.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Custody and relocation outcomes are highly fact-specific.

Procedural Posture

A relocation matter typically arises:

• Post-divorce, when the custodial parent receives a job offer out-of-state or seeks to move to be near family
• During pendency of a divorce, intersecting with the custody determination
• After a non-marital relationship dissolves, when parents share joint legal custody under a consent order or court-ordered parenting plan

The procedural arc:

1. Notice under Bisbing (the relocating parent provides notice; the court does not require pre-suit “consent”)
2. Application by the relocating parent for permission, or Application by the non-relocating parent for an order prohibiting relocation
3. Discovery including potential custody evaluation
4. Plenary hearing under Bisbing — full testimony, expert evidence, child interview where appropriate

Substantive Analysis

The 14 factors of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4:

1. Parents’ ability to agree, communicate and cooperate
2. Parents’ willingness to accept custody
3. Interaction and relationship of child with parents and siblings
4. History of domestic violence
5. Safety of child and either parent
6. Child’s preference (age 12+ generally, lower with showing)
7. Child’s needs
8. Stability of home environments
9. Quality and continuity of child’s education
10. Fitness of the parents
11. Geographical proximity of homes
12. Extent of time-spent and quality of child-parent relationships before separation
13. Parents’ employment responsibilities
14. Age and number of children

The relocation analysis layers these onto the proposed move: how does relocation affect the child’s stability, education, and parental relationships?

Motion Practice

The plenary hearing is the central event. Pre-trial work:

• Custody evaluation by a court-appointed or jointly retained evaluator (Rule 5:8-1 et seq.)
• In-camera child interview under R. 5:8-6 if age and circumstances support
• Witness preparation — both parents testify; collateral witnesses (teachers, therapists) where appropriate
• Expert reports — the custody evaluation drives much of the hearing record

Resolution Category

In Bergen Family Part relocation matters where the Bisbing best-interests record supports the moving parent’s plan and the non-moving parent’s parenting time can be preserved through a modified schedule, the resolution category is relocation permitted with revised parenting plan. Where the record does not support the move, the resolution category is relocation denied; the custodial parent then chooses whether to relocate without the children or stay in NJ. Mediation often produces a structured compromise involving substantial extended summer/holiday time for the non-moving parent.

What Avery & Avery Does on a Bergen Relocation Matter

1. Pre-application strategy — when a client is contemplating relocation, the firm advises on documentation, communication, and timing
2. Filing — petition for permission with proposed parenting plan
3. Custody-evaluation coordination — the firm prepares the client and provides records to the evaluator on schedule
4. Mediation participation if the matter can resolve short of plenary hearing
5. Plenary hearing preparation — the Bisbing record drives trial; preparation is dense

Statute and Case-Law Anchors

• N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 — relocation statutory base
• N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 — best-interests factors
• Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309 (2017) — best-interests standard
• Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480 (1981) — joint custody presumption framework
• R. 5:8 — custody-evaluation procedure

Free Consultation

For custody and relocation matters in Bergen County and Northern NJ:

• Call: (201) 943-2445
• Office: 559 Bergen Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Ridgefield, NJ 07657
• Online: Free consultation request

Related

• Family Law
• Bergen County
• Best Interests of the Child Walkthrough