Best interests, Divorce grounds, Parental relocation in one jurisdiction reference.
Research dates are shown separately in each topic.
New Jersey · October 27, 2026
A judicial administrative directive standardizes party designations when out-of-state custody and parenting-time orders are registered.
New Jersey
Statutory framework; 15 semicolon-delimited considerations.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-4 (factor paragraph following subsection c)
Statutory
15 semicolon-delimited considerations
shall
preamble
Equal parental rights; § 9:2-4 bars a presumption about the cause of a child’s reluctance
none
New Jersey
Irreconcilable differences causing breakdown for at least six months, with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Alternatively, 18 consecutive months apart in different habitations with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:34-2, -3. P.L. 2007, c. 6, checked against the official legislative history table and current code reproductions.
Irreconcilable differences causing breakdown for at least six months, with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Alternatively, 18 consecutive months apart in different habitations with no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
Seven additional grounds: adultery, 12-month desertion, extreme cruelty, 12-month addiction or habitual drunkenness, 24-month institutionalization for mental illness, 18-month imprisonment, and the statutorily termed deviant sexual conduct without consent. Nine grounds in all, not twelve fault grounds.
18 or more consecutive months "in different habitations." Same roof cannot qualify by the statute's own words
None as such. Cruelty complaint may not be filed until three months after the last act; irreconcilable differences must have existed six months
Yes, divorce from bed and board, on joint request, § 2A:34-3
New Jersey
Bisbing applies best interests to parents sharing legal custody. The survey found no published post-Bisbing decision resolving sole legal custody.
N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 (Bisbing)
general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)
burden on the relocating parent
no
out-of-state
Section 9:2-2 does not specify a deemed-consent rule; the statute sets different consent language for a child of suitable age and a younger child.
Bisbing (2017): in all interstate relocation disputes where parents share legal custody (primary/alternate residence or equal time), 'cause' under § 9:2-2 is decided by weighing the § 9:2-4 factors and other relevant considerations to determine whether relocation is in the child's best interests. This replaced the Baures two-part test (good-faith reason, and not inimical to the child's interests). Since January 20, 2026 the § 9:2-4 framework has been rewritten (P.L.2025, c.316): child safety is a 'threshold issue,' the policy preamble puts children's 'protection and welfare' as paramount, and the court must state reasons when it rejects a child's expressed preference. 'Geographical proximity of the parents' homes' remains a factor. Bisbing's holding is expressly limited to parents who share legal custody (230 N.J. at 312-13; slip op. Part III.D). No published decision since 2017 identified that states the standard when the relocating parent has sole legal custody.
Where the parents share legal custody, the parent seeking to relocate must show 'cause' by a best-interest analysis (Bisbing). No presumption for the primary-residence parent after Bisbing. No formal shift. Bisbing does not state the rule where the relocating parent holds sole legal custody.
No statutory notice period or form is specified in § 9:2-2. Its text provides that a child of suitable age may not be removed from the jurisdiction against the child’s consent; while the child is under that age, removal is barred without both parents’ consent, unless the court orders otherwise upon cause shown. Bisbing addresses the cause standard in the shared-legal-custody posture.
Removal out of New Jersey of a child of divorced, separated or separately living parents where the Superior Court has custody jurisdiction and the child is a New Jersey native or has lived there five years (§ 9:2-2). Bisbing addresses interstate relocation. In-state moves are outside § 9:2-2: an intrastate move by the parent of primary residence is not a statutory 'removal' requiring court approval, but it may be a substantial change of circumstances supporting modification (Schulze v. Morris, 361 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2003)). After Bisbing, the Baures factors no longer apply to that question; the objecting parent of alternate residence must show that the move is a change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests, and if a prima facie case is made the court applies the § 9:2-4 factors (A.J. v. R.J., 461 N.J. Super. 173 (App. Div. 2019)).
Section 9:2-2 specifies no separate objection deadline or deemed-consent procedure. It permits a court order upon cause shown and authorizes security, writs and processes. In a contested interstate relocation where parents share legal custody, Bisbing requires the mover to seek a cause determination under the best-interest standard.
Not a separate requirement for the relocation ruling. Bisbing treats a permanent interstate relocation as governed by § 9:2-2 'cause' and best interests. Custody arrangements are otherwise modifiable on changed circumstances.
§ 9:2-2 applies only to children born in New Jersey or resident five years, and it lets a child 'of suitable age' withhold consent to removal.
Bisbing applies best interests to parents sharing legal custody. The survey found no published post-Bisbing decision resolving sole legal custody.
On the moving parent
No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required
Out of state
Explore Steadycase’s case-organization tools and jurisdiction source guides.
Explore Steadycase toolsNew Jersey organization guide
Explore Steadycase Compass
Publisher’s products · Separate from sponsorship and editorial research
