My response:
The law in California regarding "move-away notice" or "permission" was changed.
Unless you have a "Joint Custody" order, the law was changed and she didn't have to give you "notice" of her move-away. All she was obligated to tell you is where your child is now residing.
By statute, the parent with physical custody of the children has the presumptive right to change the children's residence--i.e., to move away with the children; courts will not interfere with that decision (enjoining the relocation or changing custody) unless the move is detrimental to the child. "A parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." [Ca Fam § 7501; Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 449; see Marriage of Biallas (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 755, 762, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 717, 721--reversible error not to consider custodial parent's presumptive right to change child's residence]
Custodial parent bears no burden of proof:
Whether the move-away dispute arises upon an initial judicial custody determination or after a custody order is in place, a custodial parent seeking to relocate with the children bears no burden of establishing that the move is "necessary." As noted earlier, there is no statutory basis for imposing a burden on either parent to justify a choice of residence as a condition of custody. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 28-29, 34, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 447, 450; see Marriage of Biallas, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at 762-763, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d at 721--reversible error to put burden of persuasion on custodial/move-away parent]
Rather, in move-away contests, the burden rests with the noncustodial parent seeking a change of custody. "[T]he basic structure of placing the initial burden on the parent seeking a change of custody, not a change of location, remains . . . Such an initial burden is not only consistent with the [Ca Fam § 7501] presumptive right . . . of a custodial parent to change residence . . . but also accords with the reality of an increasingly mobile society." [Marriage of Whealon (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 132, 141, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 559, 564-565 (brackets added; internal quotes and citations omitted)]
Cases holding a relocating custodial parent is required to prove that the contemplated move-away is "necessary," "essential and expedient" and/or "for an imperative reason" are erroneous and have been expressly disapproved by the Cal. Supreme Court. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 38, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 454, fn. 10; see Ruisi v. Thieriot (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1202, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 766, 769--remand required because trial court erroneously applied pre-Burgess standard]
"Permission" to move not in issue:
In accordance with Ca Fam § 7501, the dispositive issue in move-away cases is not whether the custodial parent should be permitted to move but, rather, whether, on account of the relocation a change of custody to the other parent is essential for the child's welfare. [Ruisi v. Thieriot, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1203, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d at 769; see Marriage of Edlund & Hales (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1473, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 683-684--custody evaluator had mistaken belief it was realistic option to have parents remain in close proximity in move-away case]
Reasons for move ordinarily not in issue:
Absent evidence that the relocation is intended simply to frustrate the other parent's contact with the children, the trial court need not "second-guess" the underlying reasons for the move. Courts are "not required to inquire further into the wisdom of [the move-away parent's] inherently subjective decisionmaking." [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 36, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 452 (brackets added); see Marriage of Edlund & Hales, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at 1470-1471, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d at 682--so long as "sound, good faith reasons" for move exist, trial court may not question custodial parent's judgment in requesting relocation]
No interrogation re sincerity of parent's move-away plans:
It has been suggested that most custodial parents seeking to relocate are simply "bluffing" and will not move if it would result in loss of custody. Even assuming this argument is sound, the court cannot probe the custodial parent about the sincerity of his or her avowed move-away plans. "[T]he Family Code provides no ground for permitting the trial court to test parental attachments or to risk detriment to the 'best interest' of the minor children, on that basis . . ." [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 36, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 452, fn. 7]
Consequently, when faced with a request to modify custody on account of a parent's planned move-away, unless the relocation decision is in bad faith, trial courts "must treat the plan as a serious one and must decide the custody issues based upon that premise." [Ruisi v. Thieriot, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1205-1206, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d at 771 (emphasis added) (interpreting Burgess fn. 7, above); see also Marriage of Edlund & Hales, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at 1473, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d at 684]
Concerns about a feigned move-away (on the premise the custodial parent is simply "testing the waters") can properly be addressed by a conditional custody modification--i.e., ordering a change in custody only if the planned relocation occurs. [See Ruisi v. Thieriot, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1206, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d at 771--such conditional modification order "does not render the decision an advisory opinion"]
The § 3024 notice provision is not mandatory (the statute simply clothes the court with discretion to order advance move-away notice); and § 3024 neither expressly nor impliedly limits a custodial parent's presumptive right to relocate with the children under Ca Fam § 7501. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 37, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 453, fn. 9 (disapproving Marriage of Carlson, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at 1336-1337, 280 Cal.Rptr. at 844-845, to extent it concludes otherwise)]
A fortiori, the Burgess interpretation of § 3024 seems implicitly to overrule case law construing § 3024 as requiring 45 days' advance notice in all move-away cases even if there is no court order so directing (Marriage of McGinnis (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 473, 478, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 182, 185-186 (disapproved on other grounds in Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 38, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 454, fn. 10)).
Exception--de novo determination in joint custody move-away cases:
The changed circumstances rule does not apply when parents share actual physical custody under an existing order and one seeks to relocate with the children. Here, "by definition," the planned move-away will upset the existing custody arrangement. Consequently, if the nonmoving parent contests the move and requests a custody modification, the trial court must determine de novo what primary custody arrangement will be in the children's best interests. [Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 40, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 454, fn. 12; see Brody v. Kroll (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1732, 1736-1737, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 280, 282; compare Marriage of Biallas (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 755, 760, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 717, 720--"liberal visitation rights" not enough to displace changed circumstances rule and respective burdens pursuant thereto]
IAAL