Relocating with a Child After a Connecticut Divorce (C.G.S. 46b-56d)

Life after divorce is rarely static. New career opportunities arise, family members need support, or a new relationship blossoms. For parents sharing custody of a child, these life changes can present a significant legal challenge: moving. Whether you are the parent seeking to relocate with your child or the parent facing the potential move of your child, the situation is emotionally charged and legally complex. You cannot simply pack up and leave.

In Connecticut, the process of moving a significant distance with a child post-divorce is governed by a specific law: Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-56d. This statute sets a high bar for the parent wishing to move and establishes a detailed framework for how a judge must decide these difficult cases.

This comprehensive guide will serve as your roadmap to understanding parental relocation laws in CT. We will break down the relocating parent's burden of proof, explore the critical concept of a "legitimate purpose," and provide a deep dive into the five specific factors a court must analyze to determine if the move is in the child's best interest. For the parent seeking permission to move with a child in CT, this article will clarify the arguments you must build. For the parent opposing the move, it will illuminate the key points to defend your parental rights and your child's stability.

Understanding the Foundation: What is Parental Relocation in Connecticut?

Before diving into the legal tests, it's essential to understand what constitutes a "relocation" in the eyes of the court. While the statute doesn't define a specific mileage, a relocation is generally considered any move that would have a significant impact on the current custody and parenting plan.

Moving to a new apartment in the same school district is not a relocation. Moving from Stamford to Boston, from Hartford to Florida, or even from Danbury to a distant corner of Connecticut, however, fundamentally alters the non-moving parent's ability to exercise their parenting time as outlined in the existing court order. It disrupts school, friendships, and the child's established routine.

This is why Connecticut law intervenes. If a custody order is in place, a parent cannot unilaterally decide to move the child a substantial distance. Doing so is a violation of a court order and can have severe consequences. The proper path requires either the written consent of the other parent or, more commonly, permission from the court. This is where the Connecticut relocation statute 46b-56d comes into play.

The Two-Part Legal Test for Relocation: The Burden of Proof

When a parent files a motion with the court seeking to relocate, they carry the burden of proof. This means it is their responsibility to convince the judge that the move should be allowed. The court doesn't start with a neutral position; it starts with the existing parenting plan and requires the moving parent to prove two distinct things, in order:

The proposed relocation is for a legitimate purpose.
The proposed relocation is in the best interest of the child.

If the moving parent fails to prove a legitimate purpose, the inquiry ends there, and the relocation will be denied. Only after a legitimate purpose is established will the court move on to the more complex analysis of the child's best interests.

Part 1: Proving a "Legitimate Purpose" for the Relocation

The first hurdle is demonstrating that the reason for the move is genuine, reasonable, and made in good faith. The court needs to be assured that the move isn't being proposed primarily to interfere with the other parent's relationship with the child. A legitimate purpose for relocation in CT is not a whim or a vague desire for a "fresh start." It must be a concrete, compelling reason that significantly benefits the moving parent and, by extension, the child.

Examples of what courts often consider a legitimate purpose include:

A Significant Career Opportunity: This is the most common reason. It could be a new job with a substantial pay increase, better benefits, or a unique career advancement that isn't available locally.
Educational Pursuits: The parent is enrolling in a specific graduate or professional program that is necessary for their career and is not available in Connecticut.
Moving Closer to an Essential Support System: A parent may need to move to care for an ailing parent or to be near family who can provide critical emotional and logistical support for raising the child.
Remarriage or a New Partner: The parent is marrying someone whose job or life is firmly established in another state.
Significant Improvement in Quality of Life: This could involve moving to an area with a dramatically lower cost of living, allowing the parent to provide a better standard of living for the child on the same income.
Health-Related Reasons: A parent or child has a specific health condition that requires treatment or a climate available only in another location.

Examples of what would likely not be considered a legitimate purpose:

To Frustrate the Other Parent's Access: Any reason that appears motivated by a desire to make it harder for the other parent to see the child will be rejected.
A Vague Desire for Change: Simply wanting to "live somewhere warmer" or "try a new city" without a specific job or compelling family reason is insufficient.
Moving to a Location with a Slightly Better School System: While well-intentioned, this is usually not enough on its own to justify uprooting a child from their other parent.

Successfully proving a legitimate purpose is only the first step. It opens the door to the main event: proving the move is in the child's best interest.

Part 2: Proving the Move is in the "Best Interest of the Child"

This is the heart of any relocation case. Even with the best job offer in the world, a Connecticut court will not grant permission to move if the relocation is not in the child's best interest. The "best interest" standard is the guiding principle in all custody matters, and in relocation cases, C.G.S. § 46b-56d(c) requires the court to consider five specific factors to make this determination.

The Five Statutory Factors: A Deep Dive into C.G.S. § 46b-56d(c)

The judge will weigh and balance the following five factors. There is no magic formula; the court considers the totality of the circumstances, and the outcome depends heavily on the specific facts of your case.

Factor 1: The Child's Interests and Needs

“Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation and the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent.”

This factor is multifaceted. The court first looks at the child's life as it currently exists.

Stability and Community: How connected is the child to their current school, friends, extracurricular activities, and community? A child who is deeply enmeshed and thriving will be seen as having a greater interest in remaining stable.
Child's Preference: Depending on the child's age and maturity, the court may consider their preference, though this is never the deciding factor.
Special Needs: Does the child have special educational or medical needs that are being met effectively by current providers? The court will scrutinize whether the proposed new location offers comparable or better services.
Relationship Quality: The court will examine the nature and quality of the child's relationship with both parents. It will consider the existing parenting schedule and how the move would impact the child's bond with the non-relocating parent.

Scenario: A 12-year-old child has lived in the same Connecticut town her whole life. She is an honor roll student, plays on the town soccer team, and has a close group of friends. Her father, the non-relocating parent, has 50/50 custody and coaches her soccer team. The mother receives a job offer in Texas. The court will weigh the child's strong interest in stability and her close, daily relationship with her father very heavily against the mother's reasons for moving.

Factor 2: The Relocating Parent's Interests and Needs

“The impact of the relocation on the child.”

This factor seems to be about the child, but it's analyzed through the lens of the relocating parent's well-being. The law recognizes that a happy, fulfilled, and financially secure parent is generally a better parent.

The court will consider:

Economic Benefit: Will the new job allow the parent to provide better housing, nutrition, and opportunities for the child? Will it reduce financial stress in the household?
Emotional Well-being: Will the move allow the parent to be closer to a supportive family network, reducing the parent's stress and isolation? Will marrying a new partner create a more stable two-parent household for the child?
The "Because" Clause: The court essentially asks, "How will the parent's improved circumstances because of the move translate into a direct benefit for the child?"

Scenario: A single mother in Connecticut is working a minimum-wage job and struggling to make ends meet. She relies on state assistance and lives in a small apartment. She receives a job offer in Ohio that doubles her salary and allows her to live near her parents, who can provide free childcare. Here, the court would see a strong connection between the parent's improved financial and emotional state and a direct, positive impact on the child's quality of life.

Factor 3: The Non-Relocating Parent's Interests and Needs

“The interests of the non-relocating parent, including the extent to which parenting time would be impacted and the feasibility of preserving the relationship.”

This is the critical factor for the parent opposing the move. The court must protect the non-relocating parent's fundamental right to maintain a meaningful, ongoing relationship with their child.

The court will examine:

Current Level of Involvement: How involved is the non-relocating parent? A parent who exercises their parenting time consistently, attends school conferences, takes the child to doctor's appointments, and is involved in daily life has a much stronger argument than a parent who is only minimally involved.
Impact on the Parenting Schedule: The court will look at the current schedule (e.g., every other weekend vs. a 50/50 split) and determine how drastically the move would change it. A move transforms a parent from being involved in the day-to-day into a "vacation" parent, which is a significant loss.
Feasibility of Preservation: Can the relationship truly be preserved through phone calls, video chats, and long-distance travel? The court is often skeptical that virtual access can replace in-person contact, especially for younger children.

Scenario: A father has a parenting plan where he has the children every Wednesday for dinner and every other weekend. He has never missed a visit, volunteers in his son's classroom, and attends all of his daughter's swim meets. The mother wants to move to California. The father can argue that this move would make it impossible to maintain his current level of involvement, fundamentally damaging his relationship with his children. His interest in preserving that bond is a powerful argument against the move.

Factor 4: The Cause of the Parent's Relocation Request

“The cause of the parent's relocation request.”

This factor circles back to the "good faith" element of the legitimate purpose test. The court will scrutinize the motivations behind the move. Is the parent running to a genuine opportunity or running from a difficult co-parenting situation?

The court will be wary if:

The relocation request comes immediately after a contentious custody modification.
The parent has a history of trying to alienate the child from the other parent.
The stated reason for the move seems flimsy or manufactured.

Scenario: A parent loses a motion to get sole custody. Two weeks later, they announce they have a "job offer" from a relative's company in a distant state and file to relocate. A judge would likely view this with extreme suspicion, seeing it not as a genuine career move but as an attempt to achieve through relocation what they could not achieve through a custody motion: limiting the other parent's access.

Factor 5: The Likelihood of a Realistic Parenting Plan

“The likelihood that a realistic parenting plan can be established that will preserve and foster the child's relationship with the non-relocating parent.”

This is the practical, logistical test. The parent requesting the move cannot simply say, "We'll figure it out." They must present a detailed, concrete, and realistic long-distance parenting plan.

A strong proposed plan should include:

Specific Travel Arrangements: Who will pay for flights or drive the child? Where will exchanges happen?
A Detailed Schedule: How will holidays, school vacations, and summer breaks be divided? Be specific (e.g., "The non-relocating parent will have the child for the first four weeks of summer vacation and the entire Christmas break in even-numbered years.").
Communication Protocols: A schedule for regular and frequent video calls and phone calls.
Access to Information: A plan for how the non-relocating parent will continue to be involved in educational and medical decisions, such as access to online school portals and inclusion on medical forms.

The more detailed and generous the plan is toward the non-relocating parent, the more seriously the court will consider it. A vague or unrealistic plan is a red flag that the moving parent has not fully considered the impact on the child's relationship with the other parent.

The Legal Process: How to Request or Oppose a Relocation

Navigating the court system for a relocation case is a formal process.

For the Parent Seeking to Relocate:

Seek Agreement First: The best-case scenario is to discuss the move with the other parent and come to a written agreement (a "stipulation"). This agreement should include a new, detailed parenting plan. If you reach an agreement, you can file it with the court to be made an official order.
File a Motion: If there is no agreement, you must file a "Motion for Order Regarding Relocation" with the Superior Court that handled your divorce or custody case.
Serve the Other Parent: You must have the motion and a notice of hearing date legally served on the other parent.
Prepare for Court: This is not a simple hearing. It is often a full evidentiary trial. You will need to gather extensive evidence to support your case for all five factors: your job offer letter, information about the new city and schools, a detailed budget showing the financial benefit, and your proposed long-distance parenting plan.

For the Parent Opposing the Relocation:

File an Objection: You must file a formal "Objection" to the motion. Do not simply ignore it. Your objection should state clearly that you oppose the relocation and why you believe it is not in your child's best interest.
Gather Your Evidence: Your goal is to show the court the strength of your relationship with your child and the child's deep roots in their current community. Collect evidence of your involvement: photos, school records, testimony from teachers or coaches, and a calendar of your parenting time.
Challenge the Proposed Plan: Scrutinize the relocating parent's proposed parenting plan. Is it financially realistic? Does it account for the child's activities? Argue why it is insufficient to preserve your relationship.

Summary and Next Steps

Moving out of state with a child after a CT custody order is one of the most challenging legal hurdles a parent can face. The law, C.G.S. § 46b-56d, is designed to protect the child's stability and their relationship with both parents.

Remember the key takeaways:

Permission is Required: You must have a written agreement from the other parent or a court order.
The Burden is on the Mover: The parent seeking to relocate must prove both a legitimate purpose and that the move is in the child's best interest.
The Five Factors are Key: The court's decision will hinge on a careful balancing of the child's needs, each parent's interests, the reason for the move, and the feasibility of a long-distance parenting plan.

These cases are intensely fact-specific, and the outcome is never guaranteed. Whether you are proposing a move or opposing one, success depends on meticulous preparation, compelling evidence, and a clear understanding of the legal standard.