Relocation with children after divorce or a custody order is one of the hardest issues family law attorneys face. Even when a move makes genuine sense—a better job, a stronger support system, a safer neighborhood, a remarriage requiring a cross-country move—good relocation cases still lose.

That doesn’t mean the law is arbitrary. It means Michigan’s legal framework prioritizes stability and continuity of a child’s relationships over a parent’s preferences. Courts apply that framework with remarkable discipline.

At Boroja, Bernier & Associates, we’ve spent years fighting and defending relocation cases throughout Southeast Michigan. We’ve seen strong cases fail for fixable reasons. But we’ve also seen cases succeed despite significant obstacles—because the planning and evidence were there.

Here’s what separates winning relocation cases from losing ones.

The Case That Shouldn’t Have Won (But Did)

A mother sought to relocate with her school-age child out of state. Her new spouse had job requirements that necessitated the move. It was a legitimate reason—a genuine life circumstance, not a pretext to sideline the other parent.

There was one problem: the non-relocating father had significant restrictions on his legal status that raised serious credibility concerns. On paper, this looked like a relocation case that should fail. The father’s circumstances seemed to favor the mother’s case.

But the court ruled in favor of relocation anyway.

Why? Because the mother did one thing right: she made it crystal clear that the father’s relationship with the child would not be disrupted by the move.

Her plan was specific. Seasonal parenting blocks—extended time during school breaks when the child could travel or the father could visit. The mother would pay for travel. She was prepared for virtual contact during the school year. She wasn’t fighting about logistics; she was making the relationship sustainable.

The court focused on one question: Will the child’s bond with the non-relocating parent remain strong? The answer was yes, backed by a concrete plan. The relocation was approved.

This case teaches the most important lesson about Michigan relocation law: the court doesn’t care as much about why you want to move as it cares about whether the other parent’s relationship with your child will survive the move.

That’s the core of every relocation decision in Michigan. Everything else flows from there.

Michigan’s Relocation Framework: What the Law Actually Says

Michigan has two critical statutes governing relocation with children.

MCL 722.31: The 100-Mile Rule

Under MCL 722.31(1), a parent cannot change a child’s legal residence more than 100 miles from the child’s legal residence at the time the custody order was entered—without court approval or the other parent’s written consent.

This is not a hard rule that bans moves beyond 100 miles. It’s a threshold that triggers judicial review.

Key point: Even moves within 100 miles can violate this statute if they meaningfully affect parenting time. The statute measures disruption, not just distance.

MCL 722.27a: Parenting Time Preservation

Even within the 100-mile rule, MCL 722.27a requires courts to ensure that parenting time with both parents is meaningfully preserved after any custody change. A move that makes frequent, in-person contact impractical—even a short-distance move—can fail this test.

The Statutory Factors Courts Consider

When a parent seeks relocation, courts must evaluate the factors under MCL 722.31(4):

1. Quality of life improvement — Will the move improve the quality of life for the parent and child? This must be specific and measurable, not just “better job.”
2. Compliance with existing custody order — Have you been following the current parenting time order? Courts look closely at your track record.
3. Intent behind the relocation — Is the move intended to frustrate the other parent’s relationship with the child? Courts are wary of moves designed to reduce contact.
4. Impact on parenting time — Can parenting time be maintained? At what cost to the child?
5. Alternative parenting schedule — Can a reasonable alternative schedule preserve the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent? This is where the mother in our case won—she had a plan.

Critical point: If the child has an established custodial environment (stable home, school, peers, consistent parenting time with both parents), the relocating parent bears an even heavier burden. The court may treat relocation as a de facto custody modification, requiring proof that the move clearly benefits the child more than continuity does.

Why Good Relocation Cases Fail: Five Fatal Mistakes

1. The 100-Mile Rule Isn’t About Distance—It’s About Disruption

Many parents and even some attorneys misunderstand the 100-mile rule. They think it’s a simple mileage limit: stay within 100 miles, no problem. Move beyond 100 miles, need approval.

That’s wrong.

The statute creates a presumption that moves beyond 100 miles require judicial approval. But the real analysis isn’t about miles—it’s about what those miles do to parenting time.

Here’s how good cases fail: A parent moves 90 miles away, stays within the 100-mile threshold, and assumes they’re home free. But the move extends the non-relocating parent’s commute to 3 hours each way. Weekend parenting time becomes logistically impractical. The court finds the move violates the spirit of the statute even though it’s technically within the mileage limit.

Conversely, a parent might move 120 miles—technically beyond the rule—but propose frequent, structured parenting time. The court approves because the disruption to the child’s relationship is manageable.

Lesson: Don’t just measure miles. Measure what those miles do to parenting time. If you can’t answer “How will the non-relocating parent see the child?” with specifics, the move will fail.

2. Judges Focus on Preserving Relationships—Not Parental Preference

When a parent seeks relocation, Michigan courts ask one central question: Will the child’s relationship with both parents remain meaningful?

Here’s where many cases fail: A parent frames the move around their own benefit. “I have a great new job. My quality of life will improve. The child will benefit from living with a happier parent.”

A judge hears: “You want to move for yourself, not for your child.”

That’s not inherently fatal—parents’ improved circumstances can benefit children. But it’s insufficient by itself. The court will dig deeper: How does this job move improve the child’s life? How will the other parent stay involved? What’s the plan?

Generic answers fail. “We’ll video call” doesn’t cut it. “We’ll visit on holidays” is inadequate. “The child will have a better school district” needs specific documentation showing the new school is demonstrably better.

Worse: If a judge suspects the move is designed to reduce parenting time—to sideline the other parent—the entire case collapses. Credibility is gone.

Lesson: Frame the move around the child’s best interests, not your own. Come prepared to prove that preserving the other parent’s relationship is a genuine priority, not an afterthought.

3. Established Custodial Environment Raises the Burden Substantially

A child with an established custodial environment has stable routines and a home where they’ve lived for years, a school and peer relationships they’ve developed, consistent and predictable parenting time with both parents, and community ties and support systems.

When a child has this, relocation becomes much harder to justify.

Courts treat relocation of a child with an established custodial environment as a de facto custody modification. The relocating parent must prove not just that the move is good—but that it’s better for the child than the status quo.

“Better job” isn’t better. “Happier parent” isn’t better. The new situation must clearly outweigh what the child loses: stability, routine, established relationships, and predictable time with the other parent.

Real example from practice: A parent relocates for a job with a 30% salary increase. On paper, that sounds like a win. But the child loses daily contact with the other parent (who has 50% parenting time) and must now see them only during summer blocks and holidays. The court weighed the salary increase against the loss of continuity and denied the relocation. The financial benefit to the parent wasn’t sufficient to overcome the established custodial environment.

Lesson: If the child has an established custodial environment, don’t bet on financial or career arguments alone. You need something that clearly and measurably improves the child’s life—not just the parent’s.

4. Poor Preparation and Evidence Presentation Kills Winnable Cases

Even strong relocation grounds fail if the evidence doesn’t match the legal standard.

Common evidence gaps:

• Vague plans instead of specifics—”We’ll maintain parenting time” (insufficient) versus “School breaks, the non-relocating parent can visit or the child can visit them; the relocating parent will pay for travel” (specific, defensible).

• No proposed parenting time schedule—A move without a plausible, detailed schedule for how the non-relocating parent will remain involved almost always fails.

• Insufficient documentation of the move’s benefit—A job offer without evidence that the job specifically improves the child’s quality of life is weak. A school transfer without comparative data on academic performance, resources, and fit is weak.

• Credibility issues with employment claims—If the job offer could have been obtained without moving, the court questions why relocation was necessary. If the job is with a company that has offices near the current custody location, the move looks optional, not required.

Lesson: Relocation requires a file. Job offers. School comparisons. Lease agreements. Travel cost estimates. A detailed parenting time proposal. A letter from the non-relocating parent’s employer confirming flexibility for travel. Affidavits from teachers or counselors supporting the move. This isn’t overkill—this is what courts expect.

5. Failure to Address Objections Proactively

Experienced judges expect smart attorneys to anticipate objections and answer them before they’re raised in court.

Examples of preventive framing:

• Objection: “The move will weaken the child’s relationship with the other parent.” Preemption: You’ve already submitted a detailed, enforceable seasonal parenting schedule with specific dates, travel arrangements, and virtual contact provisions. The court sees the relationship is protected.

• Objection: “You’re moving to sideline the other parent.” Preemption: You’ve documented that you offered the other parent flexible terms, paid for travel, and facilitated virtual contact. Your conduct proves your motive.

• Objection: “The child will be uprooted from an established environment.” Preemption: You’ve shown that the new location has demonstrable benefits for the child (better school, family support system, safer neighborhood) that outweigh disruption. You’ve also shown how parenting time will be preserved.

A relocation motion that doesn’t pre-answer these questions risks losing not on the merits, but on presentation and framing.

Lesson: Put yourself in the judge’s shoes. What would make you doubt this move? Answer those doubts before you file.

What Winning Relocation Cases Have in Common

The mother in our out-of-state relocation case won because she understood something fundamental: judges don’t care why you’re moving. They care whether the child’s relationships will survive.

Her winning strategy:

• She acknowledged the non-relocating father’s established bond with the child. She didn’t argue he should have less time—she argued his time would be preserved, just differently structured.

• She proposed a specific, sustainable plan. Seasonal parenting blocks. The mother would handle travel costs. Virtual contact during off-weeks. Not vague—concrete.

• She made the logistics easy, not contentious. She wasn’t fighting about how often or when. She was offering solutions that accommodated both her move and his relationship with the child.

• She put relationship preservation first. Even with significant challenges, the court focused on one question: Will the child remain bonded to both parents? The answer was demonstrably yes.

Key takeaways:

• Specificity wins. “Seasonal blocks” beats “we’ll stay in touch.”
• Cost-sharing matters. When the relocating parent bears the travel burden, it signals genuine commitment to preservation.
• Flexibility wins credibility. Not fighting about logistics, being reasonable about scheduling—these matter to judges.
• The relationship is the prize. Not the relocation itself. Not the job or remarriage. The child’s bond with both parents. Frame everything around that.

Frequently Asked Questions About Michigan Relocation Cases

Can I move more than 100 miles away with my child in Michigan?

You can, but you’ll need either written consent from the other parent or court approval under MCL 722.31. The court will evaluate whether the move benefits your child and whether the other parent’s relationship can be preserved with an alternative parenting time schedule. Without proper approval, the move can be blocked or reversed.

What factors do Michigan courts consider in relocation cases?

Courts evaluate five main factors under MCL 722.31(4): whether the move improves quality of life for parent and child, your compliance with existing custody orders, whether the move is intended to frustrate the other parent’s relationship, how the move affects parenting time, and whether an alternative schedule can preserve the child’s bond with both parents.

How long does a Michigan relocation case take?

Most contested relocation cases take three to six months from filing to final hearing, though complex cases can take longer. If both parents agree to the relocation and can negotiate parenting time modifications, the process can be resolved in a few weeks. Having your evidence and proposed parenting schedule ready before filing can significantly speed up the timeline.

What happens if I move without court approval in Michigan?

Moving without required approval can result in the court ordering the child returned to the original location, modification of custody in favor of the non-relocating parent, and a finding of contempt of court. Courts view unauthorized moves as evidence that the parent prioritizes their own interests over preserving the child’s relationship with both parents.

Do I need a lawyer for a Michigan relocation case?

While you’re not legally required to have an attorney, relocation cases are among the most complex and high-stakes matters in family law. The legal standard is demanding, the evidence requirements are specific, and the consequences of losing can mean being separated from your child or having your parenting time dramatically reduced. Most parents benefit from experienced legal representation.

What if my ex opposes the move but my reasons are legitimate?

Legitimate reasons help, but they’re not enough by themselves. The court’s focus is on whether your child’s relationship with the other parent will survive the move. You’ll need a detailed, workable parenting time proposal that demonstrates how that relationship will be preserved. In our experience at Boroja, Bernier & Associates, the cases that succeed are the ones that proactively address the other parent’s concerns rather than minimize them.

Protect Your Family’s Future

Relocation cases require careful planning, thorough evidence, and a strategy that puts your child’s relationships first. Whether you’re seeking to relocate or defending against a move, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

At Boroja, Bernier & Associates, we help families throughout Macomb County, Oakland County, Wayne County, and Southeast Michigan navigate these difficult decisions. We’ve seen what wins and what loses. We know how to build the case that gives you the best chance of protecting your relationship with your child.

To schedule a consultation with the Michigan family law attorneys at Boroja, Bernier & Associates, call our law offices at (586) 991-7611. We’ll help you understand your options and develop a strategy that works for your family.