N.J. Stat. § 9:2-2
Custody of children of divorced or separated parents within jurisdiction of Superior Court; removal from jurisdiction; consent; security
When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order. The court, upon application of any person in behalf of such minors, may require such security and issue such writs and processes as shall be deemed proper to effect the purposes of this section.
Amended by L.1948, c. 321, p. 1295, s. 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Dever v. Howell
Dever v. Howell (2018)
“He concluded that plaintiff unlawfully removed the children from New Jersey without first complying with N.J.S.A. 9:2-2. Plaintiff gave defendant less than one day's notice about the move, and although defendant objected, plaintiff moved to South Carolina without first obtaining…”
Cooper v. Cooper (1984)
“1957), reminds us: Section 9:2-2 evinces a strong policy predilection for keeping minor native residents of this State of tender years, children of divorced or separated parents, from being removed from the jurisdiction without the consent of both parents.”
Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III (077533) (Sussex County and Statewide) (2017)
“the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its…”
Simmons v. Simmons (1986)
“N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-2 (West 1976). In Cooper, that court held: When removal is challenged under N.”
Carrascosa v. McGuire (2008)
“N.J.S.A. 9:2-2. 18 .Carrascosa claims that she filed a matrimonial nullity action with the Ecclesiastical Court in Spain, and that on May 24, 2004, the Ecclesiastical Court made a formal public notice of the application to annul the marriage.”
Staab v. Hurst (1994)
“" N.J.S.A. 9:2-2. Although Arkansas has no such statute, we think that the factors outlined in D'Onofrio should apply to a chancellor's consideration of the issue of relocation.”
Stout v. Stout (1997)
“377 (1994) ]; and New Jersey, [N.J.Stat.Ann. § 9:2-2 (1993)] all contain language that the custodial parent “shall not” remove the child from the jurisdiction without the other parent’s permission or court order.”
Ireland v. Ireland (1998)
“350 (1997); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-2 (West 1993); N.C.”
Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, Iii (2016)
“" N.J.S.A. 9:2-2. One of the underlying purposes of the statute involving removal is to preserve the parent-child relationship of the non-custodial parent and the child.”
Hale v. Hale (1981)
“” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-2 (West, 1976). In D’Onofrio, the court analyzed the differences between the relationship of a child to a custodial and to a noncustodial parent, saying: “Even under the best of circumstances and where the custodial parent is supportive of a continuing…”
Gancas v. Schultz (1996)
“, N.J.S.A. 9:2-2; Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 40, § 609 (1977); see also Wilder, Pa.”
Perrott v. Perrott (1998)
“, N.J.S.A. 9:2-2; Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 40, § 609 (1977); see also Wilder, Pa.”
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.