What Social Science Reveals About Relocation Outcomes | Episode 244

Parental Relocation in Divorce: Legal and Social Science Insights

In this episode of Divorce at Altitude, Ryan Kalamaya and Amy Goscha explore the complex and high-stakes world of parental relocation after separation or divorce. Joined by Dr. Kate McNamara, a child and family evaluator, they dive into the legal framework in Colorado, social science research, and practical strategies for navigating relocation cases—where children’s stability, parental rights, and family dynamics intersect.

Guest Information

Dr. Kate McNamara, PhD is a licensed psychologist and child/family evaluator with decades of experience in parental responsibility evaluations, long-distance parenting coordination, and therapy. She provides expert insight on social capital, risk factors, and protective factors that influence children’s adjustment to relocation.

Episode Highlights

Legal framework for relocation – Understanding Colorado statutes (C.R.S. 14-10-124 & 129), pre-decree vs. post-decree relocation, and burden-shifting standards from key cases like Cheslick, Spawner, and In re Dale. 

Social capital and children’s outcomes – How the web of relationships with family, friends, teachers, and community supports affects adjustment to relocation. 

Age-specific risks – Young children, adolescents, and children with special needs face unique challenges in maintaining relationships and routines. 

Gatekeeping and parental involvement – Restrictive behaviors that limit access to the non-relocating parent can significantly impact relocation outcomes. 

Practical planning – Designing parenting plans, summer schedules, and decision-making protocols to mitigate stress and preserve relationships. 

Evidence-based evaluation – Using tools like PREs, CFIs, and risk assessment models to forecast potential impacts on children and guide informed judicial decisions. 

Why Listen?
Whether you are a parent, attorney, or family law professional, this episode equips you with the knowledge to understand relocation risks, legal requirements, and strategies to support children through high-stakes transitions. Learn how to balance parental rights, child stability, and long-term well-being in complex relocation scenarios.

What is Divorce at Altitude? 

Ryan Kalamaya and Amy Goscha provide tips and recommendations on issues related to divorce, separation, and co-parenting in Colorado. Ryan and Amy are the founding partners of an innovative and ambitious law firm, Kalamaya | Goscha, that pushes the boundaries to discover new frontiers in family law, personal injuries, and criminal defense in Colorado. 

To subscribe to Divorce at Altitude, click here and select your favorite podcast player. To subscribe to Kalamaya | Goscha's YouTube channel where many of the episodes will be posted as videos, click here.  If you have additional questions or would like to speak to one of our attorneys, give us a call at 970-429-5784 or email us at info@kalamaya.law.

************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS ON THIS PODCAST IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE. CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE OR AREA TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES.

Transcript

Ryan Kalamaya (00:00)
Welcome back to another episode of Divorce at Altitude. This is ⁓ Ryan Kalamea. This week we are going to do a little preview of a presentation that Amy and I are doing with Dr. Kate McNamara for the Domestic Relations and Probate Institute. It's a judicial conference and we wanted to kind of do a trial run. So apologies if you hear some ⁓ stumbling or or mixed commentary.

But we figured it would be w useful to at least take this opportunity to share kind of our knowledge. So as is kind of evident by the intro, I am joined by Amy. ⁓ Amy, ⁓ how are you ⁓ doing today?

Amy Goscha (00:41)
Good. I'm really excited I'm really looking forward to doing this presentation with Dr. McNamira and you, Ryan. I know that you and I have been on this podcast. I've had Doctor McNamara, so it'll be great to present with both of you.

Ryan Kalamaya (00:52)
Yeah, indeed. We've had Dr. McNamara on several times. And ⁓ so the focus of the topic or the focus of the presentation is when parents move and why the law is different for parental relocation and in particular some of the social science involving relocation. And for listeners, we've done an episode or two on relocation. ⁓ and we wanted to kind of

present some of the knowledge and social science research out there for judicial officers. We also are going to be making a similar presentation to lawyers. So a lot of the presentation or the the kind of what you're about to hear is focused on the the audience is not necessarily the lay ⁓ person and it could a little bit over the head of Eric and Melanie Wolf, our hypothetical divorce clients, but

The kind of example is Eric wants to relocate from Colorado to Los Angeles, California. It's just and we'll we'll get into some hypotheticals, but what happens in that circumstance? So, you know, for judges, we want to explain to them about why these cases are some of the more difficult cases that they'll ever deal with on the bench. Amy, correct me if I'm wrong, but because you're gonna talk about the law, but

In remarriage of Cheslake, one of the cases that we're gonna talk about that was decided by the Colorado Supreme Court said that these relocation cases are some of the most challenging cases that exist. And when you hear, when I talk to judges, I've dealt with a lot of relocation and we'll hear maybe a little bit more why I I have in particular have dealt with them up in the mountains. But the the the judges just really, you know, as soon as they

they get one of these cases, they realize how challenging they are. They often involve experts. And so one of our recommendations is to give the appropriate weight to experts, namely peer E's, which Dr. McDamara has been in in the past. CFIs, they are often involved in relocation cases. And, you know, really the judge needs to think about does relocation truly result in the loss of a parent and that they're

various things that a judge needs to consider, and that is parental engagement, the quality dynamics. So ⁓ some cases are more straightforward when there's a clear disparity with between a strong parent and a and a weaker one. But then really getting into the the kind of issues that are driving their relocation. The reality is that the law is hard because

There's no presumption for or against relocation. Amy's gonna talk about the history and we really are seeing an increase in the numbers of families relocating. We'll at the very end we'll start talking about some of the demographic changes. I am a native of Longmont, Colorado, and I moved up to the mountains. And you know, but I am you know, Amy's a a native Colorado as well, and she was up in the mountains for a while and then she moved.

we're actually somewhat unique in that we're actually from Colorado and that we are seeing just an influx of of people or people moving all around. I've said on a podcast before, relocation to me is the nuclear bomb in ⁓ any sort of divorce. And that is because there are winners and there are losers. And that is the kind of cold reality because we have competing constitutional rights. There's a constitutional right for a parent

to travel and live wherever they want versus a parent's right to ⁓ to spend time with their their children. And then we have a child's right for stability and meaningful relationships. So Amy, do you want to give us kind of a a session overview of what we're gonna talk about after this intro?

Amy Goscha (04:42)
Sure. Yeah. And then just one kind of judicial perspective that I think is helpful to think about just in hearing and talking to judges about these cases is that, you know, there isn't a presumption, but there, you know, like when you're hearing evidence to parse out, maybe there is like sometimes there are easier cases than not, like easier ones meaning more more straightforward I should say.

when there's a clear disparity between a strong parent and a weaker one. And I know that that's really nuanced trying to parse that out. And then really recognizing like the harder cases, the most difficult one decisions that I've heard from judges are when both parents are actively involved and are capable. So that, you know, that's something that I have heard consistently. So kind of in what, you know, the judges are going to take away from this presentation. ⁓

Are we gonna go through the history because we know that on the bench there are some new judicial officers. so we want to make sure that we're going through the legal framework so you know where to start from the case law perspective. And we're also going to dive into the social science and relocation with Dr. McNamara. ⁓ and then we're hoping to get through some practical application scenarios that can hopefully help.

judges think about these scenarios ⁓ you know, and how to proceed on findings and orders. So kind of looking first to that legal framework in Colorado, I'm gonna start with the statutory foundation re regarding relocation. So the relocation statute when you're modifying a parenting time is under 1410, 129 under 2C. I mean there's certain, you know, factors, but what I really want to point out is that

What gets really confusing about when you're reading the statutes is it talks about best interests of the child, but then there's certain circumstances that point to the endangerment standard. and we'll go through the Colorado cases that have kind of defined that over time until current. But looking at 1410-129, ⁓ it it addresses whether the best interest factors, which are in 1410, 124, need judges need to make findings on.

Plus the relocation factors in 1410-129. There are certain circumstances where, for instance, in equal parenting time, that the courts are going to look at the best interest factors under 1410-124, as well as the relocation factors under 1410, 129 to C. Some circumstances where you're going to look at the endangerment standard would be.

when a party with whom the child resides a minority of the time seeks to relocate with the child. So you imply the ⁓ dang endangerment standard. And also the best interest factors look at domestic violence findings, which recently some of the domestic violence language has been taken out of 1410 124. So be aware of that with a house bill that was just signed by Governor Polis and I believe was effective yesterday.

So those are the main things, you know, like I put on a spreadsheet or just a sheet, you know, like here are the factors under 1410, one twenty-four are the best interest factors, and then one twenty nine. And so the case law in Colorado really will go through and we'll talk about, you know, when you when you utilize those factors, ⁓ you know, and what the court has to find. So we have intermarriage of Francis that came out.

In nineteen ninety-six. This is where there was an early presumption in favor of the custodial parent. There essentially was we call it the three-factor test, Francis test, which talked about the burden shifting. And so let me find I'm trying to find the Francis factor. So the three-part test, essentially what was codified in Francis was that when a sole residential parent wishes to move with the child, the trial court

Should take the following steps to determine what's in the best interest of the child. So, number one, the first part of the test was the custodial parent must present a prima fascia case showing that there is a sensible reason for the move. And then once the custodial parent parent meets the prima fascia burden, the presumption shifts then to the non-custodial parent to show that essentially the move is not in the best interest of the children. So

U utilizing those factors. The non-custodial parent can also overcome the presumption, allowing the child to remain with the custodial parent who wishes to move by showing that the factors of the modification essentially showing that either there's three factors that the custodial parent has consented to the modification of the non-custodial parent becoming the custodial parent, that the custodial

custodial parent has allowed the integration of the children into the non-custodial parent's family or using the endangerment standard. So we had kind of this like burden shifting that the court had to had to to do. And so we fast forward to June two thousand five when we have two cases that came out, which was Chestlick and Spawn.

So in general, in Colorado, Cheslick is the standard case for when you're looking at relocation after an initial determination of parenting time has been made, whereas Spaumer is pre-decree. talking about Spaumer, essentially what the court found there is that you do not look at the factors under 1410-129. You're going to be looking at the factors under 1410.

124. Under Cheslick, we also use a balance a balanced approach, which when you look at the factors under 1410-129, you will see that the first two factors are related to each of the parents. The first one is reasons why the party wishes to relocate. And then number two, reasons why the opposing party objects. So that's where you can kind of see within the statute that this presumption you know, was taken away.

Ryan Kalamaya (10:44)
in any the way I think of it is the pre-decree spawner you're just dealing with 1410 124 and that in in cheslick you're dealing with the plus factors and I think that it's important to for people to understand that the post-decree Cheslick gets into why the people are moving or the p the parties are moving, the schools, the family ties. And by the when you read

Cheslik and Spawn are together. And I think you kind of have to read them at the same time because you understand what one is is not the other. And then in particular with Spawner, you don't you're not supposed to get into why are they moving, even though everyone wants to know. So

Amy Goscha (11:31)
I would say that under 1410-124, I think that the way that you can still kind of get into it is, you know, the court can consider any other like relevant factor. So I think that that's also key, you know, key to look at as well. And what I found really interesting because I just went and reread all of these cases from start to finish. But in Cheslick, like they started talking about what we'll get into the social capital, but the

statistics on in Colorado, like how many people were moving, you know, and and looking at those, you know, statistics. So I found that very interesting that, you know, like already we were looking at that, you know, like when these cases came out back in 2005. The other case that I'll just highlight, well there's actually two cases that I'll highlight, but essentially ⁓ the Zalea, essentially what happened in that case in 2006 is that apparent

What the court found is that a reduction in parenting time resulting from the other parent's relocation with the child is not to be construed as a restriction, which would invoke the endangerment standard. And we're seeing a lot of lines of cases recently, especially with Interraymarriage of Dale, that just came out within the last week. But we have in remarriage of West that talks about the qualitative and quantitative nature of parenting time. And if you change that, that

Essentially it could invoke the endangerment standard or not. and so now we really have heard clear from the courts that in in remarriage of Dale, that a reduction of parenting time unless it goes to zero, which is quantitative, does not invoke the endangerment standard. And then Morgan v. Morgan is also a varied benchmark case. that case essentially what happened there is that it was pre-decree and the

Actually, can you remind me, Ryan was is Morgan B Morgan pre decree or not? Yes. Yeah. So what happened in that case is that the the mom wanted to move but she said, I'm only going to move. I'm not gonna leave my children here in Colorado because I want a new job. And so the court essentially fashioned a parenting plan and took the mom's kind of not unequivocal statement that I'm going to move as, you know

Essentially saying I'm gonna enter a fifty fifty parenting time schedule in Colorado, which kind of kept here in Colorado, which the court found you you can't do that. The court has to look at pre-decree. If mom is saying that she's moving to I can't remember if she was moving to Arizona in that case or California, mom's moving to California, dad's here. Now bashing the parenting plan under 1410 124, use AFS interest factors.

Ryan Kalamaya (14:06)
I think it's California.

Yeah, and and Dr. McNair, I we w I'd love your take on from an evaluator's standpoint because what I hear from all judges is they hate relocation cases. And we are operating lawyers. You you're not a lawyer, but you're you ha everyone's operating within a system that everyone has acknowledged is imperfect and that the reality is that the law requires the court and you as an evaluator to say, okay.

Mom says she wants to go to California. So I have to evaluate in a spawner case. Mom is in California, dad is in Colorado. What do I do? What's best for the kids? And we I agree with Amy that there's like the catch all in 1410 124, but you're not supposed to think about really why she's moving. You're not supposed to think about the schools because that's supposed to be for Chesley. And the question.

the ch the courts have said, well, it's not in fourteen ten one twenty four and the schools are not. I mean geographic location is, but how difficult, just briefly, Dr. McNamara, is that legal abstraction that is forced upon you with Spawner?

Dr. McNamara (15:27)
It's extremely difficult because when you're dealing with real families, these the these are the very issues that they're talking about is, well now wait a minute. If if the children go to California with mom, there's going to be all of these changes that are brought upon the child. And we need to be thinking about what the impact of those changes would be for this child and whether or not that's in their best interest. So are we allowed to

Consider that or not. That's a relocation factor. That would be a post-decree analysis. But pre-decree, you're right. The statute isn't written to take those things into consideration. I think they do come in under relevant other factors. I I think they do come in, particularly if you're looking at this through the framework of the ch the child's psychological experience in each each environment. You're looking, you're looking at if the children reside with parent A.

what is what is their situation going to be versus parent B. And you inevitably get into that. You can kind of bring it in under adjustment to home, community, and schools. It it it sort of comes in there. You can bring it in under other factors, but it is very challenging because the statute doesn't match up with what what the parents themselves are talking about. The parents are often talking about why the move and why not the move. And the parents are often talking about

But I'm not gonna go, of course, if if if I'm not supported in taking the children. I'm not gonna they're they're telling you all these things. You have to put all that aside in the legal framework.

Ryan Kalamaya (16:58)
Yeah, and Amy, I think your sled here that that it's generally seen as easier to relocate under Spawner. And we kind of just addressed that. But I mean, the law in Cheslick is supposed to be that parents are have equal burdens, right? But like there is this presumption that everyone and judges are human beings and you see it of you wanna move? Like I'm you you kind of are I think at least what I've counseled clients is

The if you want to move after a divorce is kind of done, and the whole idea, the p policy behind b the the law is that divorce is chaotic. Relocation is just a part of like taking the snow the the like little snow globe and shaking it all up. And it's just one part of that. Whereas the dust is supposed to settle from a divorce, people get in routines, and now you want to shake the snow globe again. We're a little bit more skeptical. But the law says that you're supposed to

treat them as equals or that they have equal burdens. But I don't in practice, I don't think that that's really what judges are inclined to do.

Amy Goscha (18:03)
Yeah, and I can say that I've, you know, like I guess I have counseled clients and I'm sure you have on that. Like if you are thinking about relocating, especially in the mountains, because you know, I practice there as well. You know, like it's expensive and then the first thing people want to do is get help from their family that doesn't live in the mountains, you know. And so you have to think about that. Like do you know, like doing it now versus later, I always usually say is, you know, easier even though there's not that presumption in the statute.

Dr. McNamara (18:32)
And the other thing to think about too is sometimes the mental health professionals are advising the parents, you know, if you can postpone the relocation, it might be better for your children. Let's assume the child's a very young child. This would give the child a chance to develop attachment and a relationship and and get something established before you relocate. We we've got those bonds established early before you move, if you can wait until the child's in school.

Other times we're thinking, you know, can you wait until they're ⁓ you know, we've gotten through all the turmoil of the divorce. Can we get them through the divorce before we introduce another transition? And that actually might be what's better for the family, but the parents very afraid to do that because it's gonna be harder to move downstream.

Ryan Kalamaya (19:18)
Yeah, and that implicates the social capital that we'll talk about in the social science. So, Amy, for listeners, when we talk about these kind of plus factors for Cheslick and like why w what are the additional factors that a court is supposed to employ under the statute for a post decree relocation?

Amy Goscha (19:36)
Yeah, they're listed here under two C, but I wanted to go through them. ⁓ and one thing I will note that I've found over the years is that, you know, we have all these factors under fourteen ten one twenty four. I do find though that evaluators and judges will pay I don't I don't know if more weight is the right way to say it, but I do find that in fourteen ten one twenty four judges really pay attention to like the ability of the parties to put

the children above their own and then also the ability of the parent to effectuate the other parent's relationship. Like I feel like those factors are like kind of weightier. ⁓ but as far as like the relocation plus factors here, I talked about the first two, which are kind of showing that we get rid of the burden or the presumption and burden. And then we talk about the history and quality of each party's relationship with the child, the educational opportunities at each location.

The presence or absence of extended family members at you know each location, which comes in a lot when we're talking about mountain cases and people wanting to relocate. The advantages of the child remaining with the primary caregiver and everything related to attachment ⁓ research, anticipated impact of the move of the child. ⁓ and I know we'll get into this research later, but there are there there is

There definitely are things that need to be paid attention to when it comes to kids and switching schools and, you know, their kind of risk factors, which I know Dr. McNamara will get into. ⁓ and then the physical proximity of the parties ⁓ with each other.

Ryan Kalamaya (21:13)
Which is essentially a duplicate of of what is in fourteen ten one twenty four because the geo geography is a factor. I I totally agree with you, Amy, in that the one of the factors under fourteen ten one twenty-four of the best interests about the ability of the parent to encourage the love and affection with the other parent, that becomes heavily scrutinized because the parent, let's say Eric Wolf, he's gonna remain here in Colorado and Melanie wants to relocate, he'll just say, Well, Melanie, this is good for you.

that this is not good for the kids for you to relocate. You're just being selfish. And that then becomes kind of the narrative that is established. But any other kind of other statutory regimes, Amy, that are implicated in in relocations that you want to cover?

Amy Goscha (21:59)
Yeah, there's some kind of ancillary statutes that we put in here that are utilized or should be looked at in relation to relocation cases. Number one, ⁓ we sometimes will appoint or we will agree upon a decision maker who can help make decisions, you know, not coming to the court about, you know, like implementing the decision. ⁓

And I know that we'll get into making detailed orders are really helpful so people aren't back in court. But one thing that can also have help help is to for the parties to agree to a decision maker on if there's disputes on scheduling or flights. And I'm sure there's other things that I'm not thinking of. ⁓ and also the use of in camera interviews. My experience or like from talking to judges is judges are very particular about

Like, are they gonna interview children or are they not? And at what age? ⁓ you know, I think the age usually is older children. ⁓ but the statute, you know, 1410-126 allows the court to interview the children and also allows if you read the statute, it allows the court to essentially ⁓ consult with other, you know, like experts as well. We also have the child legal representative who can come in and represents the best interests of the children and kind of can

Triage and can get information to the court. And one thing that's really important is to look at ⁓ intermarriage of land LAN, which essentially is the case that talks about holding the psych the psych the therapist patient privilege. There are there are points where if the parents usually hold the privilege, but maybe they will waive it or not just for their own advantage. So this was a DNN case, but essentially the therapist held

The privilege as to whether or not certain notes ⁓ from the child child session should be admitted and the therapist did waive that privilege. So that is important to look at. And then temporary orders says specifically that judges and magistrates can enter APR orders in accordance with the best interest factors and sites to 14, 10, 11, 24.

Ryan Kalamaya (24:06)
Yeah, and I'm curious on this last point, temporary orders. Doctor Marak Nara, how many ⁓ cases have you how frequently do you see situations where someone r asks to relocate on a t like temporarily or like under temporary orders? They they wanted they wanna go now. I've certainly had that. That was my first relocation case and it was it it I think judges are very reluctant to let them go, but but

th one thing, you know, Amy, in the Spaumer case, I think the facts of that case, if I remember correctly, the the mom w worked for Sprint or someone and she went to Arizona and the the kind of basis of how that ⁓ got appealed was that the husband saw a restraining order requiring her to come back and the co the the court said it was during the divorce and said, You need to come back to Colorado. And so which you know there's the

automatic temporary injunction where a parent can't relocate without the without the the permission of or not relocate but take the children out of the state of Colorado without the permission. But Dr. McDamare, how frequently do people ask on t on a temporary basis?

Dr. McNamara (25:15)
Well, I I see people asking. I don't very often see it granted. I think it's but a lot of times people will be, well, the court's gonna have to let me go. Surely the court's gonna let me go because I have a job. I I bought a home, I'm all set up, I have to go. And they don't get to go. And then they're scrambling to make it work. And it can be quite a while because it's a relocation case. So now there's gonna be these experts involved and it becomes a very high stakes case. So

yeah, I s I I see people not being able to move. Do you see them being able to move very often?

Ryan Kalamaya (25:49)
No, and we'll get into this on the at the end in terms of the practical. I mean, if Eric is the one that's remaining here in ⁓ Colorado, his one of his defenses or strategies is just slow things down because Melanie is gonna like eventually is gonna get frustrated. She might lose her she might not have that job opportunity. Her boyfriend or her new relationship might not sustain ⁓ or or not, you know, survive that sort of ⁓ impediment.

And so it's just delay. And like school starts. All of a sudden, you know, Johnny and Sally are going back to school. And now Melanie's like, well, maybe I shouldn't relocate. So, you know, that from a practical matter, no, that's generally accepted that you're not going to be able to relocate during the divorce, even though Spauma requires you to assume that they're in California, Arizona. But no, they generally don't ⁓ allow you to to do that.

Then there's other issues in terms of UCC J E A that we haven't even implicated is that if the child is gone for six months primarily, then you get into these jurisdictional issues. So no, the the the short answer is that judges generally are gonna say, You need to remain here. Like you can go to California, Arizona, Florida, wherever.

all day long without the kids. So you're gonna have to figure it out. But that then brings us to like the social capital and the social science of relocation. So Dr. McNamara, take it away and educate us on the social science.

Dr. McNamara (27:19)
Okay, so relocation in the context of divorce or parental separation is one of the highest risk transitions for children. So we start there and it's not inherently harmful, and we have to also hold that. But there are a number of variables involved in a relocation that can amplify the stress of relocating and adjusting to a new environment.

To the relationship disruptions that are typically involved in a relocation, and it can increase the children's exposure to parental conflict. So we know from lots of research that relocation in in-tack families, so when families are moving without separation and divorce, that there's an increased risk for children of emotional.

Difficulties, behavioral difficulties, social difficulties, academic difficulties, a number of things people really care about. Outcomes for children that we care about. There is an elevated risk. It's not an inevitability, but there's an elevated risk. We know that when there are three or more moves, the chances are doubled that children are likely to have these problems. And we have to remember that these relocation cases often are the beginning of multiple moves.

When somebody relocates, it may be with without knowing the the details. But in in particular cases, this might be the the beginning of a number of sequential moves for a child. And each of those moves increases the risks. One move alone, now this research does come from the school mobility literature, but one move alone increases the risk of academic difficulties for children by forty percent.

Relocation, school mobilities associated with high school dropouts, with things like drug and alcohol use, things like teenage pregnancy. I'll get into why that is or why we hypothesize that might be because of the stresses and strains of of of the the the changes. Now, on the other hand, there are all those risks, and we're about mitigating risks for kids in any scenario. On the other hand, many resilient children.

And outgoing children do very well with relocation and they don't manifest these kinds of difficulties. We always have to look at this ⁓ in terms of an individual assessment. And we need to be looking at very specific variables and factors, which I will be getting into that comport pretty well with the statutory factors. And I'll talk about how they map onto the factors. But we also need to remember that in some cases, perhaps many cases.

Relocation is a positive for children. Think about cases where there has been a lot of turmoil in the family, and a parent is getting away from a chaotic, abusive, violent set of circumstances. And the absolute best thing that could happen for this child is to be removed from this entire environment and move to a place where the resources and the social capital are better.

So there are certainly cases where where it's clearly better for this child to move. And there are other cases where even when you're just doing a comparative analysis of two environments that are both adequate, one can emerge as the better outcome. And it may be the relocating location because of the resources that might be available in that environment that would benefit the child's development. So I'll get into that here in a minute when I talk about social capital. But I do want to point out.

That there are limitations to this research. And we want to be careful about overstating or over-generalizing what the research says, particularly to any individual family. This is group research. Some of this research is on school mobility. We don't have the ability, the obvious obviously, we don't have the ability to randomly assign people to a relocation case and a not relocation case and see what the outcomes are for the two groups.

These are studies where we're looking at comparisons between people who have relocated and people who haven't. It's correlational research. Much of it is survey research. We need more comparative group research. We need more longitudinal research. And we need to be very careful about not overinterpreting the data that we do have. We want to be cautious about the risks, but we not want to be careful about over-predicting or overestimating risks.

We also want to remember that we are drawing inferences from literature that is in some cases indirect. These are not divorced families who have relocated, and all of the characteristics of the sample that was studied may not match this individual family at all. They may have a whole lot of unique things going on in their family that isn't typical of the sample that was studied, in which case we have to be extra cautious about relying on the research in general for an.

individual family. The research is constantly evolving. You got to keep up with what the latest and greatest is. And I'm giving you sort of the 30,000 foot view here because it our our time is limited. So let's move into social capital. We toss this term around. What are we talking about? It's a very, very key issue in relocation cases. It's a key issue in other cases. Social capital refers to the web.

Think of it as a spider web almost, a web of relationships that quietly supports children's healthy development. Web of relationships. And when you really think about this, there are many, many relationships in a child's life that change when you introduce a relocation. So you've got the parents, you've got the siblings, and you have very close family members, maybe the grandparents.

And then if you think about the sort of the next outer layer of that circle of trusting, secure relationships for a child, you've got neighbors, you've got teachers, you've got coaches, you have other people in the school, you have therapists, you have your faith communities, you have doctors, you have dentists, you have nannies, daycare providers, there's the lady at the in the cafeteria.

There's the bus driver. And we may think, well, these people don't really matter in they might. They might matter. And I'm gonna try to illustrate this a little bit. These relationships are part of a complex web of support that a child has. And when something happens, something goes wrong in that child's life, be it at school, be it in sports, be it at home, these are the people that are

That provides stability and anchoring for children. These are the relationships that sustain us and buffer us through adversity. And so we think about this as social capital. And sometimes the environment where you, where the child is, is rich with social capital. You have all these familiar people who are part of the child's stable life, who are there and provide an anchor.

When a parent is less available than they otherwise might be. Other times, children are in an environment where that social capital is severely lacking. And a relocation is the best thing that could happen for this child because we're going to move them to a more enriching environment where there are going to be extended family members and there's going to be a better social network and there's going to be a better community with activities and opportunities to support this child's.

Sense of stability, mastery of skills, growth and development. So we this is an anchoring concept, this idea of social capital. Think of it as a safety net for children. It's a backstop when the parents are at odds with one another. These familiar faces and these stable people can be huge. Depending on the case, a coach, take a coach for a kid who's super into sports, a coach who provides structure.

Who provides confidence, who is encouraging, who pushes the child to develop grit and stick to itness, to have goals, to think of all the skills you master. That coach may be a very critically important person in a child's life, and the loss of that individual can be quite significant. We need to be thinking about that in these relocation cases. Who are the people in this child's world?

That will be lost or will be gained. And the same thing is true for teachers or a therapist or a child with special needs and the people who are who are surrounding that child and meeting that child's needs. So the concern here with respect to social capital is that these safety nets get weakened when you engage in a relocation. Children oftentimes cannot articulate this. So we talk about in-camera interviews. Kids may be focused on the shiny object.

the new thing that's going to be at the new environment or who I'm going to lose here, but it but they're not able to see the whole picture. They may greatly underestimate how hard the adjustment will be or overestimate how hard the loss will be. I mean, it so we need to be careful. We wouldn't we we always want to consider children's voices and weigh their voices. And we also want to recognize that they may not have the life experience to be able to fully anticipate what we're what we're talking about here.

We want to be thinking about the quality of the child's relationships with mom and with dad and with ⁓ extended family members, but we wanna be thinking about the quality and the function of relationships with other people in the child's world. Because after a relocation, that world is going to shrink, at least for some period of time. It takes a while to build your new network. And when that gap is occurring, the child is vulnerable.

They may form not great relationships. They may ditch school. They may, they may have a harder time depending on what their vulnerabilities are. Building that new network, it takes skills, it takes parent involvement. Parents need to help pave the way for this social capital to be realized in the new place. Virtual technology helps with helping.

mitigate loss. It's not a replacement for in-person relationships, but it can help. And of course, the big obvious thing that we focus so much on is it reduces the contact that the child was formerly accustomed to with the parent who remains. So that gets into the whole thing of how involved was that parent to begin with. But if it's a highly involved parent, that's obviously a hugely significant loss. And then we're trying to

figure out in these long distance parenting plans how we're going to compensate for that loss? How are we going to restructure the child's life, which has implications for the the total pool of social capital? If you're going to go spend every break and every summer with the parent in another community, what does that do to that child's availability to maintain friendships, to be involved in activities, to be involved in continuity in their community?

When they're living essentially in two different places part of the year. These are the the conundrums that we face in these cases. Okay, so we want to do this comparative analysis back to Spawner. In a Spawner case, we're still looking at with parent A, what is the school and environment school environment, what is the availability of extended families? These are baked into the best interest statute.

And we can still evaluate those things, look at those factors, think about how those things affect the child without going into a full-on relocation analysis. You're still looking at the comparative two home scenarios and determining you can do a straight up best interest analysis, ⁓ I think within the same within the ⁓ 14, 10, 124 factors. Okay, and keep them keep in mind that there is this thing called negative social capitalism. Exposure to potential harms is negative.

social capital. So intimate partner violence, harsh parenting, poor parenting, substance use, unsafe environments. And we certainly have those cases where those are concerns and those are are going to be looked at in the other direction in these family in these relocation cases. Okay.

So moving along, we want to be weighing risks. It's not just what mom wants, what dad wants. It's what are the risk factors and what are the protective factors? How can we mitigate risk and what are the options here?

And what is ultimately the the the final analysis in terms of best interest? Okay, moving on to key protective factors. These are the four big ones. What is the quality of the relationship between the child and the primary parent, meaning the parent with whom the child would primarily reside? What is the quality of a the primary parent's parenting? And what are we talking about there? Well, we're talking about this parent's ability to engage in warm, supportive.

Parenting, attuned parenting, recognizing the child's need and being responsive to the child's needs, and also structure and demands that are age appropriate for children. It's that, it's that balancing of both warmth and structure, discipline and boundaries and limit setting and age appropriate demands with warmth and support. What is the quality of the child's relationship with both parents? So even if they're, even if an

If the other parent's not the primary parent, what is the quality of that relationship? Because if it's strong, the relocation is much more likely to go better because we've got a strong relationship that exists before the relocation occurs. If it's a weak relationship, it's harder to shore that up from long distance. So think about very young children, for example. We're trying to build a relationship in the absence of frequent contact. Very difficult to do.

And what is the quality of the co-parenting relationship? Lots of research is emerging to indicate that when the co-parenting relationship is poor, the parent-child relationships are affected in in significantly negative ways. So if you've got a bad relationship between the parent, the risk of a poor parent-child relationship goes up. And when you add relocation into the mix, the inference is that that risk elevates. All right.

And then that brings us to Bill Austin's risk assessment model. And in the interest of time, I'm going to hit this in broad broad strokes. This is a framework that is widely recognized in the social science literature as being a useful evidence-based framework for thinking about the impact of a relocation or a move, if it's a pre-decree, you know, a change of community for a child.

And it's widely used by evaluators who are working within the legal framework, but are using this risk assessment model to reach their opinions about what the impact of the relocation might be on a child. The key areas of assessment are the emotional functioning of both the parent and the child or children, each parent's ability to support the parent-child relationship because this turns out to be a very key factor.

In relocation cases is how able are the parents going to be to support the ongoing relationship with a long distance parent? And what is the history of both parents' involvement with the children before the relocation? So there are eight factors that the relocation model encourages us to consider. Number one is the age of the child. Currently available research indicates that when the relocation occurs with very young children.

The risk is elevated for difficulties with that child forming and maintaining a relationship with the long distance parent. This is based on the difficulties of very young children having maintaining in their mind the connection with a parent who is a long way away. Virtual technology can help, but it's no substitute for caregiving of a child. What do we do with young children? We have frequent contact. Do we have more?

more back and forth with young children to enhance that relationship development. And we're not able to do that with long distant cases unless the parents going to the environment where the child is, or we're moving the child back and forth. So that becomes a real d difficult period of time for a relocation to occur. And then with teenagers, middle school and teenagers, social hierarchies are formed in school. It's harder to break into schools. It's harder to break into

sports and clubs and existing social paradigms ⁓ in adolescence. So that's the other riskier time. The distance, are we talking about a 75 minute? Are we talking about Aspen to Denver or are we talking about, you know, Denver to Miami? The distance makes a difference in terms of the the just the logistics and ability to craft a long distance plan that would support more frequent contact.

The psychological stability of the relocating parent. If that parent doesn't have good mental health, doesn't have good solid ability to handle stress and change, the risk goes up for children because relocation is stressful on the moving adult as well. Changes of job, changes of community, unless, of course, you're in a scenario where the changes are going to be very positive for that parent. And sometimes you'll hear.

Well, it's good for me, therefore it'll be good for the children. A little bit of an oversimplification, but we're what we're really looking at is what is this parent's coping skills, ability to manage change, because you have to work extra hard to pave the way for the child's adjustment to the new environment. What about the child's temperament? What about the child's special needs and what's happening in the current environment versus the new environment in terms of meeting those needs?

What is the involvement of the non-residential parent? I've already mentioned that. And gatekeeping is a whole other concept that we probably aren't going to have as much time as I would like to to get into that whole concept. But the idea here is if you have a parent who is restricting for whatever reason that child's access to the other parent in a way that is not justified and is not protective, but is just marginalizing the other parent.

That is a major predictor that the relocation is going to have a negative impact on that parent's ability to be an involved, positive figure in that child's life. And so we we end up looking at that factor of the ability to facilitate the relationship very heavily because you have to do it to a much higher degree in a relocation situation. If there's what is the degree of conflict and has there been domestic violence is a huge issue that can propel

somebody to want to move and may justify why somebody wants to move and why it might be good for a child to move, but chronic conflict chronic conflict may be may be viewed the same way. Or the conflict ⁓ who is driving the conflict. Not all conflict is bilateral. There can be one parent who's driving the conflict and that parent is the same parent who wants to relocate and it's going to create a wedge between the children and the other parent. And then finally the recentness of the separation and the divorce.

If you're relocating at the same time as the divorce, it's that much more turmoil for the child. They haven't had a chance to recover from the divorce before they're now also adjusting to a whole change of community. And so that becomes a more complicated transition for them. Many mental health professionals will advise one step at a time, let's not introduce too many changes at once. And that may not be realistic for the family, or it may not behoove the parent who wants to move.

Due to the state of the statutory factors. All right. Let me just say I'm not going to unpack gatekeeping in detail here. You can read this slide, but gatekeeping is a pattern of behaviors that is either supportive or not supportive of a parent-child relationship. And that can be for protective reasons that are justified. It can be unjustified and restrictive in ways that are aimed to interfere with that parent's involvement.

And we need to be doing a analysis of what is going on in terms of any gatekeeping kinds of behavior that gets us into why are you leaving? What are the relatives' advantages and disadvantages, which moves us right into those relocation factors. So I'm going to stop here in the interest of time and turn it back over to my colleagues.

Ryan Kalamaya (48:19)
Dr. McNamara, the I think we'll get into the the hypotheticals, but is it fair to say ⁓ I had a case once where the restrictive gatekeeping was the the it was analyzed and determined by ⁓ an evaluator and the party the the mother she was she wanted to go a very far ways away. And the evaluator had

Concerns about her restrictive gatekeeping and and and how that was going to manifest itself in a relocation was seen through, well, she was gonna come up with excuses for putting the children on a flight. There was gonna be a sickness. there was gonna be you don't really want to go see your dad. And those elements, is that an example of where restrictive gatekeeping was gonna show itself?

in and w should be considered in the context of a relocation.

Dr. McNamara (49:12)
Yes. That you just described restrictive gatekeeping where there's a lot of excuses for why the call shouldn't happen, the the the parenting time shouldn't happen, why the exchange is late when there's already an established pattern of this and the person saying, I wanna move because I've always wanted to live by the ocean. So I wanna move to the, you know, California coast. That's their reason for move and I have a right to live where I want to live.

Right. You you begin to get a picture here of wow, you know, this is not gonna go very well for this parent. And that that would be the kind of analysis I'm talking about.

Ryan Kalamaya (49:49)
Right. Well, ⁓ that kind of moves us into the demographic trends and the relocating ⁓ kind of the data and we thought it'd be interesting just to kind of shove in terms of population growth. Generally speaking, ⁓ people aren't having as many as many kids in the eastern plains. My mention I'm from Longmont. you know, I saw one of my friends from at a baseball tournament this past weekend and he I grew up with him. It was a Longmont team and I reached out to him and but they're all from Mead. And that when I was growing up

Mead was like nothing. Now it's like mead, Firestone, Erie. And like that is a trend that we're seeing. And so these relocations, people are leaving generally Jefferson and Boulder County and they're moving out, you know, west and south. And and a lot of it has to do with where jobs are, where the cost of housing. ⁓ but the schools in particular, that is an implication. So it's more common that you're gonna see people who, you know, like are relocating. One parent might be

relocating out out out east and to Adams County. ⁓ and you know, look how you're gonna have to deal with the geographic limitations, you know, of that. But one of the implications is that the extended family, there's not as much extended family. Amy has extended family as do I in Colorado because we grew up here and but we're kind of unique in that sense. So Dr. McNamara, one thing that we talked about was a pre dec

Pre-decree in our scenario one. So we have, you know, some minutes or some time. We thought it would be helpful to kind of flesh out these various factors. So one common s situation I deal with is parents in the mountains. One parent generally is all in on that mountain lifestyle. They moved from New York or LA or from Denver. They sold a business. They had a lot of money. And then one parent just really wants to go there. The other one just kind of goes along. And when they go through divorce, they realize.

you know, wow, like, you know, Melanie Wolf, her family is down in Boulder or, you know, in Fort Collins and sh she can't afford to live in in Aspen any longer. ⁓ there might be a premarital agreement, there might be other circumstances. So Melanie wants to move closer to Fort Collins. There might be some nostalgia. She might have met an old high school boyfriend. There might be a variety of factors.

You know, in this circumstance, we are not supposed to get into why she wants to relocate, but the extended family, the schools, are these gonna be relevant factors, Dr. McNamara, if you're like an evaluator, when you're assessing risk, when you're assessing you know, restrictive gatekeeping that you kind of w went went over. Like what are the social capital components that we're gonna really kind of focus on or things that would might matter in this scenario to you as an evaluator?

Dr. McNamara (52:32)
Well, one thing I will say is I think we are prone to get ourselves highly focused on the parents and their wishes and their arguments for why one scenario is better than the other. And this can be actually quite excruciating because, you know, you can feel the emotion behind this because whatever happens is going to have significant implications for what they want to have, what what outcome they want. And there's no way to sort of

Parse this, you know, we can't create some kind of like you talked about winners and looters, losers. The kids cannot be in two places at once. So somebody is going to be able to relocate or or or not. And I would say these cases, when you talk about the extended family, yes, that's a very important factor, but you gotta look at it along with all the other factors. The extended family members may not be, these may not be extended family members who are.

they may travel a lot. They're not even in four collins that much. They have a home in four collins. You need to get into the weeds in these cases and really understand what is the function and quality of these relationships for this child. It's not just the Bugsworth, the grandparents are there. Who you need more information than that. And you need so I the devil is in the details in these cases.

Ryan Kalamaya (53:51)
Yeah,

and that we have some discussion points. I think, you know, the age of the children, you know, is is obviously one of the it's a big consideration. But did they move up to Aspen because, you know, Johnny is a ski racer and is he fourteen years old and he is about like he's an accomplished ski racer, has very deep ties with his ski coach. And if Melanie

is the one that's is leaving. Can you fashion I mean, you're gonna have to work around Johnny's ski schedule because that was clearly that that's gonna be beneficial to to Johnny. And you know, but are you gonna be able to meet in Vale, for example, where they they meet or Silverthorn and they meet in a parking lot and you're dealing with driving in the in the winter. Well, there's gonna be some scheduling

issues. So those are factors. And Amy, I mean, you used to go back and forth a lot more than I, you know, than I did when you were in Eagle County, 'cause you could come go back and see your your family. you know, maybe could you comment on the parenting plan options with the the driving distance in this scenario?

Amy Goscha (54:57)
Yeah, that you just need to really detail that in the parenting plan, you know, like what that's gonna look like because we have, you know, or we have when the past closes, you know, like or sometimes maybe if you have, you know, some families like have the nanny who's transporting the child back and forth, what happens

Dr. McNamara (54:57)
I think I

Amy Goscha (55:16)
you know, when the tunnel closes. So I think just building in all those details within the parenting plan. But I think also inflowing if you can get both parties to agree to a decision maker to parse out when those scenarios happen to get a quick answer to resolve the the conflict, I think is really helpful.

Ryan Kalamaya (55:34)
Yeah, and I think that it's ⁓ night judges don't have as much time to pr create a detailed protocol. I think them recognizing their limitations and identifying these as issues. I mean, we all went to law school to identify issues, it's the issue spotting, but maybe to encourage parties hey, you should work on some sort of communication protocol on driving because

It is inevitable that I-70 is going to close or that there is going to be something that happens. But going to your social capital examples, Dr. McNamara, where you're comparing the small mountain community versus a large metro area, you know, that is it brings up those those different characteristics. It it may be Melanie is moving because there's and we'll get into the different scenarios, but there might be more resources. There might be more medical health.

you know, advantages. They I think it would be I don't think that the c the the law prohibits a judge from considering those, but I do think that the law really does guide the court on what is important. But you have this whole pre decree timing, like does is the is the person waiting or are they moving now for a legal strategy? And I think it's fair to kind of question those

you know, those kind of incentives. You know, in a post-decree relocation, so in a scenario a second scenario, a different scenario. So we're comparing, let's say that Melanie Wolf wants to move to Miami and she has a special needs child. They Eric and Melanie, they you know, the I I forget Dr. McDamara, you you would probably be able to confirm, but the divorce rates for children of special needs is like ninety pr it's it's exceptionally high. So they recognize that they each other

are are you know that they need a break, that they need each other and they've agreed to an equal parenting time. Well, if Melanie meets some new ⁓ you know partner or determines that Johnny needs a special needs school, then you know she wants to relocate to ⁓ Miami. So now we're dealing with air travel. So you know if is it in Aspen where there are no direct

flights. So and and if Johnny is five years old, well, you know, if he has special needs, then there's gonna be issues on, you know, the unaccompanied minor. But if if they're older and they can do a direct flight, then those are the things that I think judges need to at least be aware of or start asking questions of the parties.

But then we've got the modification modification standard applies. And Amy, do you want to maybe talk about that modification standard? Because it implicates fourteen ten one twenty nine and and intermarriage of Dale and some of the cases that you just went over in terms of does the endangerment standard apply or ⁓ what are we really talking about here?

Amy Goscha (58:28)
Yeah, the endangerment standard doesn't apply in this scenario. and you're going to be needing to look at those fourteen ten one twenty-nine factors. And the other thing under fourteen ten one twenty nine is there's a section that says the court is to hear relocation cases to make a pri it a priority on, you know, their docket. Yeah. So that is one thing to think about. And, you know, some other thing.

you have some discussion points here. But one thing I was going to mention just so I don't forget, I think as attorneys, sometimes these relocation cases can seem very polarizing and a lot of times they are because there's a winner and a loser. But I think also as an attorney, you can figure out what the motivations are because a lot of times the parent that isn't moving, you know, doesn't want the children to move. But if you really dig down and figure out what is the reason, sometimes you can come up with a creative way to

actually have the parent you know, like agree to the relocation. And I've actually had cases where both parents end up, you know, moving. So there are some of these other, you know, cases I think as attorneys that we, you know, should be looking at, not that it's just World War Three. And I think judges will sometimes also, you know, it's a postcree matter, like send it to mediation. ⁓ it depends on how soon the move is.

Ryan Kalamaya (59:46)
Yeah, well, one thing and I want Dr. McNamara's input on this about the summer break that we haven't mentioned, and that is that generally speaking, there is a relocation parenting plan. And that and when we talk we haven't really discussed that is that there's winners and losers. The winner is the parent that gets the children that go to school because they have the parenting time during the school. And this is why like the geography, like Veil to Denver, you can have a weekend.

you know, once a month you could have long weekends. Those are great opportunities. But if a if a parent lives in Aspen and the other parent lives in Miami, you're it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do a weekend because the ch the the child and then you're kind of asking yourself, is this what's best for the child? Because they're on the plane the whole time. And that that is one of those things. So what do you do? You make up for the parenting time during the summer. So when they have summer break.

The non-custodial parent, the non school parent, then makes it up. But then we have this discussion point, Dr. McDamler. I would love for you to comment on the age, the social capital of that summer parenting plan and how that can be problematic, especially as kids get older.

Dr. McNamara (1:01:00)
Yeah, this is this is an issue I'm thinking a great deal about because of the time of year. We're in June. So these kids are all doing this like right now. And I've done parental responsibility evaluations for over 30 years, but now I'm doing all parent coordination and family therapy, kid therapy. And so I'm seeing these families living with these long distance plans. And what kids say in my office about school getting out and that and they're very excited to go spend the summer with.

their other parent. But they're also really sad because they're not going to see their friends. They can't go to this key these cool camps these kids are going to. You know, there is loss. This is divorce. Divorce is ongoing management of different kinds of losses. And in these long distance scenarios, kids are struggling with this stuff, even though they themselves may go, I don't know what what the alternative is. I want to see my other parent.

I have a good time and that, but I gotta go to that other. They're not embedded in that they've got to develop that. Some kids are they're going to Hawaii. Like who wouldn't want to go to Hawaii or who wouldn't want to go to Aspen for the summer? But their community isn't there. That social, that web isn't there. And they have to sort of go in and sort of get back into it. And the parent has to be very active in helping assist the child in doing that. So I I I do think these are

great challenges and explain why the risk is higher for these kids to have some difficulties. It it just totally makes sense. The other thing I wanted to comment on is when we get into these issues about the school that has one community has these really highly rated schools and all these resources versus the smaller community that has maybe fewer resources, but it's a unique kind of lifestyle that the parents had formerly embraced, these sometimes just get into value differences.

You know, they are value laden, heavily value laden. And we don't have any research to say one's better than the other. And we have to weigh those kinds of arguments that the parents will put forth. We have to weigh those less and look at what we do know about what would be predictive of the child's experience or that we we have better reason to believe would be predictive. Because the higher rated school may not be the better school for this child. And these higher rated schools like great.

These are parents rating the schools. I always say go to the state government website that it's a more reliable source, but those ratings are not usually they were never very helpful to me as an evaluator. I see people putting them in the reports because they're so easy to pull up. Doesn't tell you anything about this child and whether it would be a good

Ryan Kalamaya (1:03:37)
Yeah, I think and knowing this, because grade schools is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and it it's based on the school data niche, I don't think is as much. But again, it's one of those things where as l lawyers, w we care about what our class rank and like where we went to school and what it was ranked. At the time it was a big deal to us.

But like then you kind of move on to life and it doesn't matter. And like I'm not saying that's quality schools. Like I I care about schools. I think every lawyer, every judge, everyone cares about quality schools, but like is it that are we gonna up are we gonna pull out a child's roots that have been really deep because of an eighty nine score versus we're gonna go chase the ninety-two? I think it it's just kind of indicative of our s society that like the grass is always greener and like there is a thing where Melanie Wolf

Or Eric Wolf, they might just want be wanting change and they have are just they're look chasing the allure that I'm gonna relocate and that's gonna make everything better. And I think we need to be a little bit more the point of this presentation is that there's some trade-offs. Like there the grass is not always green, right? It may be. And if we go to kind of our final scenario to kind of wrap things up, is that you know, that we could have a scenario where there's a teenager.

There's a 14 and 11 year old and the a parent wants to move out of the Denver metro area. you know, the the children are in competitive soccer. So I think one of the reasons that we brought this up is relating to Amy, you mentioned the in-camera review is I ev every in-camera review that I've ever dealt with and in multiple cases, it's always been involved in every location. I think that underscores how and why they're so important.

And the judges want to get it right. And they they're so polarizing. And so is it fair to ask a 14-year-old, do you want to relocate? And then you get into like, what have Eric and Melanie been telling the 14-year-old? Like, are they in a bad ⁓ or how are they doing in school? ⁓ you know, like do they have a you know, do they have a boyfriend, girlfriend? Are they and like the competitive soccer? Are they trying to relocate because they want

They they're in Aspen and there's limited competitive soccer. I mean, this says Denver, but like are they trying to move to a more competitive soccer? Like, why are they trying to move and at what point do you poll or how at what point do you ⁓ interview the child? And Amy, do you want to talk maybe about the polling that has been done for judges on when they reload or when they do in-camera reviews?

Amy Goscha (1:06:17)
Yeah. And I think in general my what I've heard from judges is that it seems to be either judges are all in and think that in camera interviews are okay and judges other judges are like, I'm not gonna do it under any circumstance. So I think that that's very interesting. But I do see it just like you had mentioned, Ryan, at least in my relocation cases, it seems to judges seem to be a little more open to it. And I think it goes to your point on the priority of

these cases getting heard, maybe we don't have enough time to, you know, get a PRE report or a CFI report done in time. But I I would suggest ⁓ that in just a reading, and again, I think it really helped. Like I went back and read all these statutes, including the in camera interview statute. And I think ⁓ judges can still and magistrates can still rely upon other like

resources. You know, it says it right in there that it's not just interviewing the child. They can also reach out to other people and other professionals to get some input. So an example would be if, you know, you haven't interviewed a child, but you need to get some information, maybe consult with, you know, someone like Dr. McNamara about what are the questions that I, you know, should be asking this child ⁓ to really get into like the nitty gritty because these cases are so fact.

you know, specific. Like even when it comes to school ratings, like when you're looking at the fact that the birth rate is going down, you know, making sure that you're understanding with the schools that are proposed. You know, we're seeing this in Colorado where a lot of districts are re are closing down schools. I just heard recently in Pooder Valley that they're going to close a number of schools, which impacts children in the schools, you know, that they'll be going to. You know, so I think the judges, I think, have very specific

thoughts about whether or not interviewing a child is good or is not good. But if you're also doing it, you can also reach out to other professionals, I think, to make it effective if you need to get certain information.

Ryan Kalamaya (1:08:21)
Yeah, and with that in mind, you know, this episode's gone ⁓ you know, on if Dr. McDamara, our info is is kind of readily available. If someone wants to consult with you or ⁓ you know, have your input on a relocation or any sort of kind of case. You mentioned that you do ⁓ you know, therapy and and and ⁓ other parenting coordination and those sorts of services, where can they find more info about you?

Dr. McNamara (1:08:47)
You can certainly send me an email, Kathleen McNamara PhD at gmail.com. Easy to reach me by email. I'm happy to to consult by Zoom or phone or with attorneys or with parents. Many parents, if I will ask a parent, are you interested in knowing what some of the factors are that influence the success of a really location? I've never had a parent say, no, I don't want to know that. They want to know that and they don't know that.

And it gets us off of what I want versus you want to these are the factors that predict a successful relocation. K can we work with that? How could we make this work? What would be the least detrimental ⁓ alternative here? And if you can recognize what that is, now how can we how can we build from there? And and to look at the options. So maybe a PRE and maybe the court can't look at all the different options, but they can certainly do that with me and they can make more informed decisions.

Ryan Kalamaya (1:09:41)
Indeed. Well, thank you for joining us on Divorce Outstitude. Hopefully you found this info helpful.