Utah Code Section 30-3-37(4) specifies seven factors Utah courts must consider when evaluating whether a proposed relocation with a child serves the child’s best interest. These factors guide the court in balancing the relocating parent’s reasons for the move against the impact on the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent and the child’s overall stability and well-being.
Last updated: July 2026
Key Takeaways
- The seven statutory relocation factors under Section 30-3-37(4) include the reasons for the move, the impact on the child’s relationships, the feasibility of preserving parent-time, and the child’s preferences.
- Utah courts do not use a mathematical formula for relocation factors; each case is evaluated holistically based on the specific evidence presented.
- The relocating parent bears the burden of proving each factor supports the move by a preponderance of the evidence when the other parent objects.
- A thorough understanding of the relocation factors allows parents to prepare targeted evidence and present a compelling case to the court.
Relocation cases require the court to make a nuanced, fact-intensive determination about what arrangement best serves the child’s interest. The seven statutory factors in Section 30-3-37(4) provide the framework for this analysis, but they are not a checklist. The court must weigh each factor based on the evidence and make a holistic decision. Understanding what each factor means and how courts typically apply them can help parents prepare their case effectively.
The factors are designed to capture the full range of considerations that matter to a child’s welfare. They address the parents’ motivations, the child’s relationships, practical logistics, and the child’s own voice. A well-prepared relocation case presents evidence on each factor, with the relocating parent showing how the move benefits the child and the objecting parent showing how the move causes harm.
What are the statutory relocation factors under Utah Code Section 30-3-37(4)?
Section 30-3-37(4) lists seven factors the court shall consider in determining whether a relocation serves the child’s best interest. The first factor is the reasons for the proposed relocation and the reasons for opposing it. The court examines the legitimacy and strength of each parent’s position, looking for evidence of good faith or, conversely, evidence that the relocation is motivated by a desire to interfere with the other parent’s relationship with the child.
The second factor is the extent to which the relocation would adversely affect the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent. This factor requires the court to assess the current quality of the parent-child relationship and how the proposed distance would impact it. A parent who has been minimally involved may have a harder time showing significant harm, while a parent who has been actively engaged in daily parenting may have a stronger case for opposing the move.
The third factor is the extent to which the relocation would enhance the general quality of life for the child and the relocating parent. This includes consideration of economic, educational, and social benefits. The relocating parent should present concrete evidence of how the move will improve the child’s life, such as better schools, a safer neighborhood, increased income, or proximity to extended family support.
Utah Code Section 30-3-37(4) requires the court to consider “the reasons for the proposed relocation and the reasons for opposing the proposed relocation, including a showing of good faith or bad faith” among seven specific factors.
How does the court evaluate the child’s best interest in a relocation case?
The court evaluates the child’s best interest in a relocation case by weighing all seven factors together rather than applying them mechanically. No single factor is dispositive, and the court has broad discretion to determine which factors deserve the most weight in any particular case. The court’s analysis focuses on the child’s welfare, not on rewarding or punishing either parent.
The fourth factor under Section 30-3-37(4) addresses the feasibility of preserving the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent through parent-time, virtual communication, and other means. The court considers whether the relocating parent has proposed a realistic and generous parent-time schedule, whether technology can supplement in-person visits, and whether the financial and logistical burdens of travel are manageable. A well-crafted proposed schedule that preserves meaningful contact can significantly strengthen the relocating parent’s case.
The fifth factor is the child’s preference, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason. Utah courts give greater weight to the preferences of older children and teenagers, particularly when those preferences are based on thoughtful consideration rather than superficial reasons. The court may interview the child in chambers to learn about the child’s views without putting the child in the middle of the parents’ dispute.
| Factor | Statutory Reference | Key Consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Reasons for and against the move | 30-3-37(4)(a) | Good faith versus bad faith motivations |
| Impact on child’s relationship with non-relocating parent | 30-3-37(4)(b) | Current relationship quality and post-move feasibility |
| Quality of life enhancement | 30-3-37(4)(c) | Economic, educational, and social benefits |
| Feasibility of preserving relationships | 30-3-37(4)(d) | Parent-time proposals, technology, travel logistics |
| Child’s preference | 30-3-37(4)(e) | Age, maturity, and reasonableness of preference |
| Impact on child’s development | 30-3-37(4)(f) | Education, community, extended family, stability |
| Other relevant factors | 30-3-37(4)(g) | Any unique circumstances specific to the case |
How does a proposed relocation affect the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent?
The impact on the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent is often the central issue in relocation cases. The court must assess the current quality and frequency of contact between the child and the non-relocating parent and determine whether the proposed relocation will materially impair that relationship. This analysis goes beyond simply counting the number of overnights and considers the nature of the parent-child bond, the parent’s involvement in the child’s daily life, and the importance of the parent’s role in the child’s development.
Evidence that the non-relocating parent has been actively involved in school activities, medical appointments, extracurricular events, and daily routines strengthens the case against relocation. Evidence that the non-relocating parent has been absent or minimally involved weakens the case against the move. The court also considers whether the non-relocating parent has taken steps to maintain a close relationship with the child under the existing arrangement and whether those efforts would be frustrated by increased distance.
The sixth factor under Section 30-3-37(4)(f) addresses the extent to which the move will affect the child’s educational, community, and extended family connections. The court considers whether the child will lose important relationships with grandparents, cousins, friends, teachers, and mentors. A child who has deep roots in the community may face greater harm from relocation than a child whose family and community ties are less established.
What weight does the court give to the relocating parent’s reasons for moving?
The relocating parent’s reasons for moving are a critical factor under Section 30-3-37(4)(a). The court examines whether the reasons are legitimate, substantial, and made in good faith. A job offer with a significant salary increase, a transfer that is required for continued employment, or the need to be near extended family for support are examples of reasons that courts typically view favorably. A desire to move for a new relationship, a general preference for a different location, or dissatisfaction with Utah’s climate are generally given less weight.
The court also considers whether the relocating parent has explored alternatives to relocation. Could the same employment or educational opportunity be pursued in Utah? Could the family support needs be met through other means? If the relocating parent has not made reasonable efforts to find local alternatives, the court may view the relocation as unnecessary or even as a pretext for interfering with the other parent’s relationship with the child.
The seventh factor under Section 30-3-37(4)(g) is a catch-all provision that allows the court to consider any other relevant factors specific to the case. This might include the child’s health needs and whether they can be met at the new location, the relocating parent’s history of compliance with court orders, the stability of the proposed new home environment, or any other circumstances that bear on the child’s welfare.
How do relocation factors differ from standard custody factors?
The relocation factors under Section 30-3-37(4) are distinct from the general custody and parent-time factors that courts use when initially establishing a parenting plan. While both analyses focus on the child’s best interest, the relocation factors are specifically designed to address the unique considerations that arise when one parent proposes to change the geographic distance between the parents and alter the existing parenting arrangement.
The standard custody factors under Utah Code Section 30-3-10 address factors such as each parent’s capacity to care for the child, the child’s relationships with siblings and extended family, and the parents’ moral character. These factors are relevant to the initial custody determination and to modification proceedings under Section 30-3-10.4. The relocation factors focus specifically on the impact of geographic distance and the feasibility of maintaining relationships across that distance.
In a relocation case, the court may consider both sets of factors. The underlying custody arrangement remains in effect, and the court’s relocation analysis is layered on top of the existing custody framework. A parent who has primary physical custody under the existing order has a strong starting position, but that does not guarantee that a relocation will be approved. The court must still find that the relocation serves the child’s best interest under the specific relocation factors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do relocation factors favor the relocating parent?
No. The factors are neutral and designed to guide the court in determining what serves the child’s best interest. Neither parent receives a presumption in their favor under the statute.
How many relocation factors must the relocating parent prove?
The relocating parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the overall balancing of the factors favors the relocation. No specific number of factors must be proven.
Can the court consider factors not listed in the statute?
Yes. Section 30-3-37(4)(g) allows the court to consider any other relevant factors specific to the case, giving the court broad discretion to address unique circumstances.
What evidence is most important for relocation factor analysis?
Concrete, verifiable evidence is most important. Job offers, school records, testimony from witnesses, and documentation of the child’s relationships carry more weight than general assertions.
Does the child’s age affect how factors are weighed?
Yes. Younger children are more dependent on frequent contact with both parents, which may favor denying relocation. Older children’s preferences and independence may favor allowing relocation.
Can relocation factors override an existing custody arrangement?
Yes. The court can deny relocation even to a parent who has primary physical custody, if the evidence shows the move would not serve the child’s best interest.
Do you need legal help evaluating Utah relocation factors?
Understanding how the seven relocation factors apply to your specific situation requires careful analysis of the facts, the evidence, and how Utah courts have applied the statute in similar cases. Whether you are the parent seeking to relocate or the parent opposing the move, working with an attorney who understands the statutory framework can help you present the strongest possible case to the court and protect your child’s welfare.
Facing a child custody issue in Utah? Jeremy D. Eveland, MBA, JD, can help protect your parental rights and advocate for your child’s best interests.
Call (801) 613-1472 or visit jeremyeveland.com to schedule a consultation today.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a qualified Utah family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Comments are closed.