In Re Lamusga

By In the Supreme Court of California

Release Date: 2004-04-29
Genre: Law

Description

In In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 28-29, 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 prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.' (Fam. Code, § 7501.)" (Id. at p. 29.)

Comments

Maximize your website's potential with Website Statistic

Get insights into your website traffic, analyze your website's audience, and optimize your website for better results with Website Statistic.

Get Started Now

More by In the Supreme Court of California

People V. Valencia

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Richardson

In the Supreme Court of California
Robinson Helicopter Co.

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Mills

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Davis

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Holloway

In the Supreme Court of California
Stephens v. County of Tulare

In the Supreme Court of California
Boghos v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds of London

In the Supreme Court of California
Tipton-Whittingham v. City of Los Angeles

In the Supreme Court of California
Yanowitz V. L'oreal Usa

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Letner

In the Supreme Court of California
Californians For Disability Rights V. Mervyn's

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Avila

In the Supreme Court of California
Munson V. Del Taco

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Hovarter

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Boyer

In the Supreme Court of California
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Garamendi

In the Supreme Court of California
Zamos V. Stroud

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Geier

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Cook

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Halvorsen

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Lynch

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Butler

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. French

In the Supreme Court of California
In Re Lamusga

In the Supreme Court of California
Gavaldon V. Daimlerchrysler Corp.

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Martinez

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Reed

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Ward

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Carasi

In the Supreme Court of California
Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist.

In the Supreme Court of California
Huskinson & Brown

In the Supreme Court of California
[U] People V. Whisenhunt

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Montoya

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Friend

In the Supreme Court of California
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Griffin

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Smith

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Thornton

In the Supreme Court of California
Morohoshi v. Pacific Home

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Hurtado

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Harris

In the Supreme Court of California
Varian Medical Systems

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Brady

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Gutierrez

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Dieck

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Chatman

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Leal

In the Supreme Court of California
People V. Celis

In the Supreme Court of California
Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Board

In the Supreme Court of California