Gardner R A
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(3):425-31.
Divorcing couples traditionally incorporate into their settlement contracts a stipulation regarding relative degree of freedom to relocate, especially if the relocating parent has primary custody of the children. Typically, the primary custodial parent might be restricted from moving outside of the state in which the divorcing couple has resided, or there may be a specific mile radius or travel time radius beyond which the primary custodial parent cannot relocate. In recent years, courts have become increasingly permissive with regard to allowing relocation by primary custodial parents, and the once stringent requirements that needed to be satisfied to justify relocation are being progressively relaxed. In 1996, the Supreme Court of California in In Re the Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d 473 (Cal. 1996), has set a precedent for even further relaxation of these once rigid restrictions. The Burgess decision has been frequently quoted in the State of California and is receiving widespread attention elsewhere. It is the author's opinion that this precedent is ill conceived and will most likely result in significant grief and suffering for the nonrelocating parent as well as the relocating children.
传统上，离婚夫妻会在他们的和解合同中纳入一项关于搬迁相对自由度的规定，特别是当提出搬迁的一方拥有孩子的主要监护权时。通常情况下，主要监护方可能会被限制不能搬到离婚夫妻居住州以外的地方，或者可能存在一个特定的英里半径或出行时间半径，主要监护方不能搬到这个范围之外。近年来，法院在允许主要监护方搬迁方面越来越宽松，曾经为证明搬迁合理性而需要满足的严格要求也在逐渐放宽。1996年，加利福尼亚州最高法院在“关于伯吉斯婚姻案”（《太平洋法律期刊》第913卷，第473页，加利福尼亚州，1996年）中，为进一步放宽这些曾经严格的限制开创了先例。伯吉斯案的判决在加利福尼亚州经常被引用，并且在其他地方也受到广泛关注。作者认为，这个先例考虑不周，很可能会给不搬迁的一方以及随迁子女带来巨大的痛苦。
