Excerpt from one of many citing CA Code:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=131223&highlight=california+relocation
"California Family Code section 3024 - -
"In making an order for custody, if the court does not consider it inappropriate, the court may specify that a parent shall notify the other parent if the parent plans to change the residence of the child for more than 30 days, unless there is prior written agreement to the removal. The notice shall be given before the contemplated move, by mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the last known address of the parent to be notified. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to that parent's counsel of record. To the extent feasible, the notice shall be provided within a minimum of 45 days before the proposed change of residence so as to allow time for mediation of a new agreement concerning custody. This section does not affect orders made before January 1, 1989."
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)).
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]
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]
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); Marriage of Bryant, supra, 91 Cal.4th at 793, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d at 795; 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]
There are no "bright line rules" for assessing prejudice to the children. Although the child's interest in continuity of placement with the primary caretaker will most often prevail (below), trial courts may consider the nature of the child's existing contact with both parents (including de facto custody arrangements) and the child's age, community ties, and health and education needs. Where appropriate pursuant to Ca Fam § 3042(a), the court must also take into the account the child's preferences. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at 39, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d at 454]
For example, the fact Mother had been the children's primary caregiver and they had previously been away from Father for nine months weighed heavily in a decision permitting Mother to relocate the children to Australia. There was "little continuity or stability in the children's lives that would favor maintaining the status quo of two to four days a week" with Father. [Marriage of Condon (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 533, 553, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 33, 46-47]
It's always a good idea to follow the California Family Code section 3024 "notice" provisions. This allows the NCP to know where his/her children are residing so that in the event of visitation resumption, the NCP has the option of continuing the parent/child relationship. "
