South Carolina Child Relocation Laws: Latimer v. Farmer Explained
When parents divorce or separate, few issues create more conflict than one parent’s desire to relocate with the children. In 2004, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision that fundamentally transformed how family courts handle these emotionally charged disputes. The case of Latimer v. Farmer not only resolved one family’s custody battle but established legal principles that continue to guide relocation decisions throughout South Carolina today.
Working in tandem with the statutory requirements found in South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44), the Latimer decision provides the framework that governs how South Carolina courts evaluate whether a custodial parent may relocate with a child over the other parent’s objection.
The Facts Behind the Case
Daniel and Michelle Farmer’s marriage ended in divorce after Michelle engaged in an adulterous relationship. Before their separation, the couple had adopted a young Romanian orphan. Following the divorce, Daniel received sole custody of the child, with Michelle receiving regular visitation every week from Thursday evening through Saturday evening, plus additional holiday and vacation time.
Daniel worked as an automation programmer for Fluor-Daniel Corporation in Greenville. When he received a job offer in Plymouth, Michigan and informed Michelle of his intention to relocate with their adopted daughter, Michelle and her parents (the child’s maternal grandparents) immediately sought a court order preventing the move. They argued that Daniel should either be prohibited from taking the child out of state or that custody should be transferred to Michelle.
The family court faced a difficult decision: Should a custodial parent be allowed to relocate with a child when doing so would significantly impact the other parent’s relationship with that child?
The Old Law: Presumption Against Relocation
Before Latimer v. Farmer, South Carolina family courts operated under a presumption against relocation established in the 1982 case of McAlister v. Patterson. This presumption made it more difficult for custodial parents to move out of state with their children. The relocating parent faced an uphill battle in convincing the court that the move should be permitted.
The Revolutionary Change
The South Carolina Supreme Court used the Latimer case to completely overturn the presumption against relocation. Justice Burnett, writing for a unanimous court, declared that the presumption against relocation had become “antiquated in our increasingly transient society” and created unnecessary confusion in family law.
The Court recognized that modern American life often requires mobility for employment opportunities, family support, and quality of life improvements. Restricting a custodial parent’s ability to relocate could unfairly trap them in a location for years after a divorce, potentially sacrificing career advancement, remarriage opportunities, or proximity to extended family support systems.
Most importantly, the Court emphasized that in all child custody cases, including relocation disputes, the controlling consideration must be the child’s welfare and best interests. The presumption against relocation was deemed “meaningless” because it failed to acknowledge that in many situations, relocation actually serves the child’s best interests.
The New Framework: Best Interests of the Child
After Latimer, South Carolina family courts analyze relocation cases through the lens of the child’s best interests rather than starting with a presumption against the move. The Supreme Court provided guidance by referencing factors that other states have used to evaluate relocation requests.
The Court highlighted several key considerations that should guide the analysis:
Each Parent’s Reasons for Seeking or Opposing the Move: Courts examine whether the relocating parent has legitimate reasons for the move, such as a significant employment opportunity, remarriage, or proximity to family support. Similarly, the court evaluates whether the non-relocating parent’s opposition is based on genuine concern for the child’s welfare or other motivations.
The Quality of Relationships: The court assesses the quality of the child’s relationships with both the custodial and non-custodial parent. A strong, involved relationship with the non-relocating parent weighs more heavily than limited or inconsistent contact.
Impact on Future Contact: One of the most critical factors is how the relocation would affect the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the non-relocating parent. Distance inevitably changes visitation patterns, but the question is whether meaningful contact can be maintained.
Enhancement of Life Quality: Courts consider whether the move would improve the custodial parent’s and child’s life economically, emotionally, and educationally. A move that offers substantial benefits may justify the disruption to existing arrangements.
Feasibility of Preserving the Relationship: The court evaluates whether suitable visitation arrangements can preserve the relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent despite the distance. Modern technology, extended summer visits, and creative holiday schedules can sometimes bridge geographical gaps.
How the Court Applied These Factors in Latimer
In Daniel Farmer’s case, the Supreme Court found that multiple factors supported allowing him to relocate to Michigan with his daughter:
Improved Quality of Life: Daniel’s new job in Michigan eliminated the extensive travel required by his previous position, allowing him to spend more time with his daughter. He had established a stable family environment in Michigan, having remarried and welcomed another child. His siblings lived nearby, providing additional family support.
Moral Upbringing: The family court noted that Daniel had taken primary responsibility for the child’s moral upbringing, taking her to church and reading Bible stories with her, even when both parents lived in Greenville and Michelle was a full-time homemaker.
Family Stability: The court contrasted the stable family environment in Michigan with the familial discord in Michelle’s family, noting that Michelle’s relationship with her parents had been unstable and her brother was estranged from the grandparents.
Legitimate Motivation: Daniel’s primary reason for relocating was employment-related, not vindictive. The court found no evidence that either parent was acting from spiteful motives.
Visitation Arrangements: While acknowledging the significant impact on Michelle’s relationship with her daughter, the family court ordered extensive visitation including regular physical visits, unlimited telephone contact initiated by the child, weekly scheduled phone calls, computer teleconferencing, and unlimited email access. The court recognized that technology could help preserve the mother-daughter bond despite the distance.
Understanding the Burden of Proof
An important aspect of Latimer is its clarification of who bears the burden of proof in relocation cases. Michelle Farmer argued that Daniel was modifying the custody arrangement and therefore should bear the burden of proving the change was in the child’s best interest.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The original custody agreement was silent on whether Daniel could move out of state with the child. Because Michelle was seeking to change custody from Daniel to herself, she bore the burden of proving two things: first, that there had been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, and second, that transferring custody to her would be in the child’s overall best interests.
The Court held that relocation by itself is not necessarily a substantial change in circumstances. Rather, relocation is one factor to consider, but the effect of relocation on the child’s best interests is highly fact-specific. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that “merely relocating and potentially burdening the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights always negatively affects the child’s best interests.”
Michelle failed to meet her burden on both prongs. Daniel’s remarriage alone was insufficient to constitute a change in circumstances, and Michelle could not demonstrate that transferring custody to her would serve the child’s best interests better than allowing Daniel to relocate with the child.
Additional Issues: The Guardian Ad Litem’s Role
The Latimer case also addressed concerns about the Guardian Ad Litem’s (GAL) investigation. Michelle argued that the GAL showed bias toward Daniel and failed to conduct a proper investigation.
The Supreme Court found no merit to these arguments. The GAL had interviewed Michelle on several occasions, observed her with the child, met with her new husband independently, and reviewed photographs of her home. The GAL acknowledged that Michelle did a good job with the child and that the child would not suffer if placed with Michelle permanently.
The GAL also observed Daniel with the child twice and requested information about his Michigan home, the community, and local schools. The Court concluded the GAL “meticulously conducted an independent, balanced, and impartial investigation” and showed no bias or prejudice.
This portion of the decision reinforced standards for GAL investigations that would later be codified in the South Carolina Private Guardian Ad Litem Reform Act.
Grandparent Visitation
Another important aspect of Latimer involved the maternal grandparents’ request for autonomous visitation rights independent of Michelle’s visitation time. The Supreme Court denied this request, applying the principle from Brown v. Earnhardt that it would “seldom, if ever be in the best interests of the child to grant visitation rights to the grandparents when their child, the parent, has such rights.”
The Court recognized that while the grandparents had enjoyed a close relationship with the child and had been primary caregivers during Michelle and Daniel’s marital difficulties, the tumultuous relationship between Michelle and her parents created concerns. Granting autonomous visitation could further divide the family if Michelle’s relationship with her parents deteriorated again.
However, the Court strongly encouraged Michelle to share her visitation time with her parents when the child visited South Carolina, allowing the grandparents to maintain their relationship with their grandchild through Michelle’s parental rights.
The Lasting Impact of Latimer v. Farmer
The Latimer decision fundamentally reshaped South Carolina relocation law in several important ways:
Eliminated the Presumption Against Relocation: Family courts no longer start with a bias against relocation. Each case is evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances.
Emphasized Best Interests: The decision reinforced that the child’s best interests are paramount in all custody decisions, including relocation cases. No predetermined presumption should override careful analysis of what actually serves the child’s welfare.
Provided Analytical Framework: By referencing factors used in other states, the Court gave family courts and attorneys a roadmap for analyzing relocation cases, even while stopping short of mandating specific factors.
Clarified Burden of Proof: The decision made clear that when a non-custodial parent seeks to prevent relocation by obtaining a change in custody, that parent bears the burden of proving both changed circumstances and that the custody change serves the child’s best interests.
Recognized Modern Realities: The Court acknowledged that contemporary American society requires mobility and that family law must adapt to these realities rather than clinging to outdated presumptions.
The Statutory Framework: South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44)
While Latimer v. Farmer established the legal principles for analyzing relocation cases, South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44) provides the statutory framework and procedural requirements that parents must follow. Understanding both the case law and the statute is essential for anyone involved in a relocation dispute.
What Constitutes “Relocation”?
South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44) defines relocation as “a change in the principal residence of the child for a period of sixty days or more.” This definition is important because it excludes temporary absences such as vacations, summer camps, or extended family visits. The statute applies only when a parent intends to change the child’s primary residence for at least two months.
The sixty-day threshold means that a parent planning a temporary three-week visit with the child does not need to comply with the relocation statute. However, a parent planning to move the child to a new state for the school year absolutely must follow the statutory requirements.
Notice Requirements Under the Statute
The statute imposes strict notice requirements on any parent seeking to relocate with a child. The relocating parent must provide written notice to the other parent at least sixty days before the intended relocation. This notice must include:
- The address of the intended new residence
- The mailing address, if different from the physical address
- The home telephone number of the new residence, if available
- The name and address of the child’s new school, if applicable
- The date of the intended relocation
- A proposal for a revised schedule of custody or visitation
- A statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation
This notice requirement serves multiple purposes. First, it ensures the non-relocating parent has adequate time to consider their options and seek legal counsel if necessary. Second, it allows both parents to attempt to reach an agreement on modified custody or visitation arrangements before involving the court. Third, it provides the family court with complete information if litigation becomes necessary.
The Non-Relocating Parent’s Response
Upon receiving notice of an intended relocation, the non-relocating parent has thirty days to file an objection with the family court. This thirty-day deadline is critical. If the non-relocating parent fails to file an objection within this timeframe, the relocating parent may proceed with the move as proposed.
The objection must be filed even if the parents are attempting to negotiate a resolution. Filing an objection preserves the non-relocating parent’s rights while discussions continue. The parents can always withdraw the objection if they reach an agreement.
What Happens After an Objection is Filed?
Once the non-relocating parent files a timely objection, the family court will schedule a hearing to determine whether the proposed relocation should be permitted. At this hearing, the court applies the best interests analysis established in Latimer v. Farmer, considering all relevant factors to determine whether relocation serves the child’s welfare.
The relocating parent may not move with the child until the court issues its decision, unless the non-relocating parent consents or the court grants permission for an interim relocation pending the final hearing.
Exceptions and Special Circumstances
The statute provides some exceptions to the notice requirements. For instance, if providing notice would expose the child or relocating parent to domestic violence, the court may modify or waive the notice requirements. Similarly, if the relocating parent’s circumstances change suddenly (such as a job transfer with minimal notice), the court has discretion to address the compressed timeline.
How the Statute and Latimer Work Together
It’s important to understand that South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44) and Latimer v. Farmer work in tandem, not in opposition. The statute provides the procedural framework—the “how” and “when” of relocation disputes. Latimer provides the substantive legal standard—the “what” the court considers when making its decision.
A parent seeking to relocate must comply with the statutory notice requirements regardless of how strong their case may be under Latimer’s best interests analysis. Conversely, perfect compliance with the procedural requirements does not guarantee approval of the relocation if the move does not serve the child’s best interests.
Consequences of Violating the Statute
Relocating without providing proper notice or obtaining court approval can have severe consequences. The court may order the immediate return of the child to South Carolina, modify custody arrangements to award custody to the non-relocating parent, hold the relocating parent in contempt of court, and award attorney’s fees to the non-relocating parent.
Additionally, violating the relocation statute can be considered evidence of the relocating parent’s unwillingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent, which weighs against that parent in future custody determinations.
Practical Implications for Parents Today
For custodial parents considering relocation more than twenty years after Latimer, both the case and the statute provide important guidance:
Comply with Statutory Notice Requirements: Provide written notice to the other parent at least sixty days before your intended move. Include all required information: the new address, telephone number, school information, date of relocation, reasons for the move, and a proposed revised custody or visitation schedule. Do not skip this step or provide inadequate notice—statutory compliance is mandatory.
Document Your Reasons: Be prepared to articulate clear, legitimate reasons for your proposed move. Employment opportunities with specific details about salary increases or career advancement, family support networks in the new location, enhanced educational opportunities for your child, or improved quality of life all support relocation requests. Vague statements won’t suffice—provide concrete evidence.
Plan for Maintaining Relationships: Before you move, develop a comprehensive visitation plan that demonstrates your genuine commitment to preserving the child’s relationship with the other parent. Consider extended summer visits (potentially six to eight weeks), school break schedules, holiday rotations, regular virtual contact through video calls, and how transportation costs will be shared. The more detailed and thoughtful your plan, the better.
Show Your Willingness to Facilitate: Courts closely examine whether the relocating parent will actively facilitate the child’s ongoing relationship with the non-relocating parent. Document your history of encouraging contact, supporting visitation, and communicating about the child. Any evidence of interference or alienation will severely damage your case.
Focus on the Child’s Best Interests: Frame your relocation request around how the move benefits your child specifically, not just how it benefits you. Courts want to see that you have carefully considered the impact on your child’s education, healthcare access, social connections, extracurricular activities, emotional wellbeing, and relationships with both parents and extended family members.
Consider Timing: If possible, plan relocations to minimize disruption to your child’s school year. Moving at the end of a school year or before starting a new grade level may be viewed more favorably than mid-year moves that disrupt education.
For non-custodial parents opposing relocation, Latimer teaches important lessons:
File Your Objection Within Thirty Days: This is absolutely critical. You have only thirty days from receiving notice of the proposed relocation to file your objection with the family court. Missing this deadline could result in the relocation being permitted by default. Even if you’re attempting to negotiate with the other parent, file the objection to preserve your rights. You can always withdraw it if you reach an agreement.
Best Interests, Not Your Rights: While your relationship with your child matters tremendously, the court’s primary concern is the child’s best interests under Latimer, not your convenience or preferences. Frame your opposition around how the move would harm your child specifically—disruption to established schools, separation from friends and activities, loss of medical continuity, or significant reduction in meaningful contact with you.
Quality Over Quantity: Demonstrate the quality of your relationship with your child and your active involvement in their life. Evidence of regular attendance at school functions, medical appointments, extracurricular activities, homework help, and meaningful time together carries more weight than simply pointing to the number of overnight visits you currently have.
Be Realistic About Alternatives: Rather than automatically opposing any relocation, consider whether a modified visitation schedule could preserve your relationship with your child while allowing legitimate improvements in the custodial parent’s and child’s circumstances. Courts appreciate parents who propose reasonable alternatives rather than taking inflexible positions. Could extended summer visits, technology-facilitated contact, and creative holiday schedules maintain your bond?
Document Your Involvement: Gather evidence showing your active role in your child’s life: school records with your name, medical records showing you attend appointments, photographs of activities together, communication records, participation in extracurricular events, and testimony from teachers, coaches, or other third parties who can speak to your involvement.
Consider Your Motivations Carefully: Courts will examine whether your opposition is truly about the child’s welfare or reflects other concerns like ongoing conflict with your ex-spouse, financial considerations regarding child support, or control issues. Be honest with yourself about your motivations and ensure they’re child-focused.
Evaluate the Strength of Your Case: Consult with an experienced family law attorney early in the process to assess whether you have strong grounds to oppose the relocation or whether your energy would be better spent negotiating the best possible visitation arrangement for the new circumstances.
When to Seek Legal Guidance
Relocation cases remain among the most complex and high-stakes matters in family law. While Latimer eliminated the presumption against relocation, it did not make these cases simple or predictable. Every family’s circumstances are unique, and the highly fact-specific nature of best interests analysis means outcomes can vary significantly.
If you are considering relocating with your child or if your child’s other parent has announced plans to move, consulting with an experienced South Carolina family law attorney is essential. An attorney can help you understand how Latimer and subsequent case law apply to your specific situation, ensure you comply with all procedural requirements, and develop the strongest possible case for your position.
Conclusion
Latimer v. Farmer stands as one of the most significant family law decisions in South Carolina history. By overturning the outdated presumption against relocation and refocusing the analysis on the child’s best interests, the Supreme Court brought South Carolina law into alignment with modern realities while maintaining its commitment to protecting children’s welfare.
Combined with the procedural framework of South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44), Latimer provides a comprehensive system for resolving relocation disputes. The statute ensures that both parents have adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, while Latimer ensures that courts focus on what truly matters: the best interests of the child.
More than two decades later, family courts throughout South Carolina continue to apply the principles established in Latimer alongside the statutory requirements. Together, these authorities remind us that family law must evolve to reflect changing social norms while never losing sight of its fundamental purpose: ensuring that legal decisions serve the best interests of children caught in the difficult circumstances of their parents’ separation.
Whether you are a parent hoping to relocate with your child to pursue new opportunities or a parent fighting to preserve your relationship with your child despite geographical distance, understanding both Latimer v. Farmer and South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(44) is essential to navigating South Carolina’s relocation laws. The sixty-day notice requirement, the thirty-day objection deadline, and the best interests factors all play critical roles in how these cases unfold.
This blog post is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Relocation cases are highly fact-specific and require careful analysis of your unique circumstances. For guidance on your particular situation, please consult with a qualified South Carolina family law attorney.