Most states require a parent who shares custody or parenting time to either obtain the other parent's consent or seek court approval before relocating with a child beyond a specified distance or across state or international lines. The relocating parent typically must show the move serves a legitimate purpose — such as a job opportunity, family support, or remarriage — and courts then evaluate whether the move, on balance, remains in the child's best interests given the resulting impact on the other parent's relationship with the child.

The legal standards for relocation vary substantially by state: some place the burden on the relocating parent to justify the move, others place it on the objecting parent to show the move is harmful, and some apply a presumption in one direction or the other depending on which parent has primary custody. Courts commonly weigh the reason for the move, the feasibility of a revised long-distance parenting schedule, the child's ties to the current community, and the history of each parent's involvement.

Because relocation standards differ so significantly by state — including who bears the burden of proof — Juricratic exposes the applicable burden allocation as an explicit scenario input and represents the projected outcome range as sensitive to that allocation rather than assuming one default rule.

Attorneys handling a relocation case build the record around the reason for the move and a concrete proposed replacement parenting schedule, since courts are generally more receptive to relocation requests accompanied by a workable plan to preserve the other parent's relationship with the child than to a bare request to move with no such plan.