JAIME TAORMINA BISBING VS. GLENN R. BISBING, III
In this appeal, the court examines the effect of a non-relocation agreement on a subsequent request by the primary custodial parent to relocate to a distant state. The court reverses and remands for a relocation hearing to determine first whether the primary custodial parent negotiated the non-relocation clause of the matrimonial settlement agreement (MSA) in bad faith. If so, a "best interests of the child" analysis must be conducted. Second, if bad faith is not demonstrated, the trial court must then consider whether the parent proved a substantial unanticipated change in circumstances warranting avoidance of the agreed-upon non-relocation provision and simultaneously necessitating a Baures analysis. If the MSA was negotiated in good faith, yet the parent fails to satisfy her burden of proving a substantial unanticipated change in circumstances, the court must apply the same "best interests" analysis as required in the first step. Only if the noncustodial parent is unable to demonstrate that the custodial parent negotiated the MSA in bad faith, and the custodial parent is able to prove a substantial unanticipated change in circumstances occurred, should the custodial parent be accorded the benefit of the Baures analysis.