There is both illegal and moral component to this question. Legally: - if no divorce action has been filed; - there are no other orders in place from a court that bar you from moving out of state or that bar you from having custody of the children; - the parents are separated; and - you need to move for the sake of providing you and/or your children the home or other necessities of life, then you can move without fear of violating any laws. If, however, you have no need to relocate out-of-state and want to move out of state simply to separate the children from their father (i.e., alienating the children from their father) and/or to obtain leverage over the child custody award, you are on shakier legal ground and morally you don't have a leg to stand on. Courts do take into account the motives of parents who move out of state for apparently no good reason. Candidly, many courts take a "possession is 9/10 of the law" approach to child custody, meaning that if a parent moves out-of-state and stays there for a good long time before child custody is awarded, the court will often favor the relocated parent as a pragmatic matter, even if the court acknowledges that the relocation was made in bad faith. But I am starting to notice a change in Utah policy. Courts find a parent relocated for self-serving reasons are often losing custody to the innocent parent who didn't relocate. Do what is right (what is *right*, not what's "right" for *you). *Let the consequence follow.
Answered on Sep 25th, 2013 at 3:37 PM