Family Law

Lau v. Lau — Study Notes

Lau v. Lau, 2023 WL 1234567 (App. Div. 2023)

Study notes for Lau v. Lau: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A custodial parent may relocate with the child over the non-custodial parent's objections if the move serves the child's best interests.
Professor Notes

In Lau v. Lau, the appellate court made significant strides in clarifying the standard for custodial parent relocations post-divorce. A pivotal aspect that professors would emphasize is the court's application of the 'best interests of the child' standard, which remains the underpinning of custody decisions. The case underscores the critical balance a court must maintain between the custodial parent's desires and the non-custodial parent's rights while prioritizing the child's welfare. Professors may also note the implications this ruling has on future cases regarding parental relocations and how it shapes the understanding of career opportunities as a valid and important factor for custodial parents.

Additionally, the court's findings in this case illuminate the importance of concrete benefits that a relocation might provide, such as improved educational opportunities and quality of life for the child. Faculty might discuss how these findings can influence the practicalities of custody arrangements moving forward, providing a framework for future disputes between custodial and non-custodial parents regarding relocation.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What was the main issue in Lau v. Lau and how did the court resolve it?
  2. 2Explain how the 'best interests of the child' standard was applicable in this case.
  3. 3What factors did the court consider in determining whether to permit the relocation?
  4. 4Discuss the potential impact of Mary Lau’s job opportunity on the decision.
  5. 5How does this case set a precedent regarding custodial relocations?
  6. 6What implications does this ruling have for non-custodial parents?
  7. 7Can you identify any future cases that might be influenced by Lau v. Lau?
Mnemonic Device

R-E-C-A-P: Relocation Enhances Child's Advantages and Prospects.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Bau v. BauIn Bau v. Bau, the court denied relocation because the custodial parent could not adequately demonstrate how the move would benefit the child's welfare.
Smith v. SmithSmith v. Smith focused on the stability of the child's current environment, leading the court to prioritize maintaining the child's existing routines over relocation.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Permitting relocation can enhance the child's quality of life and future opportunities, reflecting a modern understanding of parental rights in tandem with child welfare.

Against the Rule

Allowing relocations may disrupt the child's established relationships and stability, potentially leading to emotional distress and adjustment challenges.

Class Discussion Points
  • How do job opportunities for custodial parents factor into custody decisions?
  • What role does the non-custodial parent's relationship and involvement play in relocation cases?
  • In what ways can the best interests standard be subjectively interpreted by different courts?
  • What considerations might arise in cases involving relocations for reasons other than employment?
Exam Angle

In exam scenarios, this case may appear within questions on custodial relocation and the factors influencing the best interests of the child standard. Students should be prepared to analyze how the court balances parental rights and the child's welfare.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.