In Re Marriage of Whealon

I.

In In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444 , 913 P.2d 473 ], the California Supreme Court recently settled a problem that had bedeviled the Courts of Appeal for more than a decade—where to allocate the respective burdens in a family law “move away” case. Despite indications in some decisions of the appellate courts to the contrary (e.g., In re Marriage of McGinnis (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 473, 479 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 182 ]), Burgess squarely held: “. . . the custodial parent seeking to relocate, like the noncustodial parent doing the same, bears no burden of demonstrating that the move is ‘necessary.’ ” (Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 37 .)

In the wake of Burgess, it is clear that the basic rules for custody modifications apply just as much to “move away” cases as they do to other cases: After the family law court has determined that a particular custody arrangement is in the best interests of a child, that arrangement should continue “ ‘unless some significant change in circumstances indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.’ ” ( 13 Cal.4th at p. 38 , quoting from Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 […