Legal Opinion

Navarro v. Lamusga

California Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 2004No. S107355PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MORENO, J.

In In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 28-29 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d 473], we held that a parent seeking to relocate after dissolution of marriage is not required to establish that the move is “necessary” in order to be awarded physical custody of a minor child. Similarly, a parent who has been awarded physical custody of a child under an existing custody order also is not required to show that a proposed move is “necessary” and instead “ ‘has the right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of ArceneauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. In Re Marriage of BurgessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Washburn v. WashburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Burchard v. GarayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Marriage of LaMusgaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API