(a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing parenting plan, the relocating parent shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) the relocation is for a legitimate purpose, (2) the proposed location is reasonable in light of such purpose, and (3) the relocation is in the best interests of the child.
(b) In determining whether to approve the relocation of the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall consider, but such consideration shall not be limited to: (1) Each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent; (3) the impact of the relocation on the quantity and the quality of the child's future contact with the nonrelocating parent; (4) the degree to which the relocating parent's and the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the relocation; and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements.
(P.A. 06-168, S. 1.)
No indication legislature intended to apply section to relocation matters resolved at time of initial judgment for dissolution of marriage, which continue to be governed by best interest of child standard in Sec. 46b-56. 113 CA 177. No requirement that court consider issue of sibling separation in the context of determining whether to approve relocation. 127 CA 691. Subsec. (a) does not require court to base decision re best interests of child on assumption that parent proposing relocation will in fact relocate. 143 CA 113. Plaintiff's prospective employment in another state, without sufficient evidence necessary to satisfy the remaining factors enumerated in Subsecs. (a) and (b), is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof required by section. 155 CA 848.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case:
Regan v. Regan, 68 A.3d 172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
Regan v. Regan, 68 A.3d 172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 23× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court misapplied the governing law under General Statutes § 46b-56d, Connecticut’s relocation statute, 2 by: (1) failing to determine whether it would be in the child’s best interests to relocate to Massachusetts with the defendant or to…”
Noonan v. Noonan, 998 A.2d 231 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 13× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to give proper effect to the pendente lite orders concerning her relocation to Farmington with the parties’ two minor children, Mackenzie and Devan, (2) failed to apply the provisions of General Statutes §…”
Emrich v. Emrich, 15 A.3d 1104 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 17× ““[General Statutes] § 46b-56d . . . sets out the analysis a court is to apply when deciding a postjudgment motion to relocate with a couple’s minor child.”
Lederle v. Spivey, 965 A.2d 621 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 9× “Section 46b-56d (a) provides: “In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on an existing…”
Taylor v. Taylor, 990 A.2d 882 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 10× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly applied (1) General Statutes § 46b-56d by permitting the defendant, Jill Taylor, to relocate with their minor child to Sea Cliff, New York, and (2) General Statutes § 46b-62 by awarding the defendant attorney’s fees to…”
Tow v. Tow, 64 A.3d 128 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 6× “The court determined, on *51 the basis of General Statutes § 46b-56d (a) (l), 4 that the plaintiff had not met her burden of demonstrating that relocation was for a legitimate purpose.”
N. R. v. M. P., 227 Conn. App. 698 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 18× “[and] the benefit 16 General Statutes § 46b-56d provides: ‘‘(a) In any proceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a…”
Dolan v. Dolan, 272 A.3d 768 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 6× “7 The defendant argues in his appellate brief that the trial court should have applied the factors contained in General Statutes § 46b-56d, which applies to postjudgment relocation cases.”
Shakir v. Derby Police Dep't, 284 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D. Conn. 2018).
“Thus, Gandy was not required, pursuant to section 46b-56d, to seek court approval before relocating with A.”
Aldin Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. State, 330 A.3d 613 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, following Ireland, our legislature enacted General Statutes § 46b-56d, which establishes the analysis a court is to apply when deciding a postjudgment motion to relocate with a minor child and ‘‘adopted the factors set forth by our Supreme Court in Ireland .”
Havis-Carbone v. Carbone, 155 Conn. App. 848 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 15× “General Statutes § 46b-56d provides: ‘‘(a) In any pro- ceeding before the Superior Court arising after the entry of a judgment awarding custody of a minor child and involving the relocation of either parent with the child, where such relocation would have a significant impact on…”
O'Neill v. O'Neill (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 8× “V The defendant’s fifth claim is that the court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff the right to relocate a reasonable distance from Wilton or New York without considering General Statutes § 46b-56d,4 which pro- vides several factors for a court to consider and apply…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56d(a): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.