A single mom's job is transferred to another state; unless she moves, she's unemployed. Her ex-husband, who spends most weekends with their kids, doesn't want to give up his connection to them.

It's lose-lose situations like this that make relocation one of the most difficult and contentious issues in divorce, local experts say.

While a 5-year-old state law clarifies what should happen when divorced parents want to move with their children, it can't soothe the heightened stakes in what one local attorney calls "an almost un-resolvable problem."

"These are heart-rending disputes because an ex-wife has the right to move on with her life but the consequences for the ex-husband can be very, very grave," said East Coast mediator Sam Margulies, author of "Getting Divorced Without Ruining Your Life." "There's not a very logical middle ground. If you live in New Jersey and your ex-wife wants to move to Seattle, you can't compromise by settling on Nebraska."

The battles are becoming more common with our mobile society, more involved fathers and remarriage, experts say. A small sample of King County relocation notices found a new spouse/partner or parent's job were the top reasons cited for a move.

While adults have the constitutional right to move freely, taking the kids along is the problem if they're subject to a parenting plan or court order.

"More cases are tried for relocation than any other aspect of parenting," said attorney and mediator Janet George, who teaches family law at Seattle University. "I think they're the hardest cases for judges. There is no right answer. With a parenting plan, one day more or less a month is not going to have a huge impact. But when a judge says, 'Yes, you can move,' or 'No, you can't,' that impacts somebody significantly."

Relocation can rival or be more emotional than the divorce proceedings, said Wendy Hutchins-Cook, a Seattle psychologist who also serves as a court-appointed evaluator in custody cases. "For the parent moving, it's 'Once again, my ex-spouse is getting in the way of what life could be,' " she said. "For the one staying, it's, 'My kid is going to move to Minnesota?!' "

Bob Karls, director of Dads Against Discrimination in Washington, said he gets two or three calls a week from fathers about move-away issues. "It comes up very frequently," he said. "Dads are upset they'll be separated from their children."

Since the mother is the primary residential parent (Washington no longer uses the term "custodial" parent) about 80 percent of the time, the argument is often pitched as pro-move feminists versus restrictive father advocates. The few studies on the effect of moves on children after divorce have been criticized as partisan.

Move-away restrictions vary by state, but Washington's statute leans toward allowing parents to move. The opposing parent must prove that the "detrimental effect of the relocation outweighs the benefit of the change to the child and the relocating person." It gives courts 10 factors to consider, including the strength of the child's relationship with both parents, the financial impact and the child's quality of life.

"It really, really comes down to the factors for an individual family and individual kid," Hutchins-Cook said. "The court makes an educated guess about what will ultimately be most supportive of the child's best development."

Relocations are "among the most troubling custody cases for courts, parents and lawyers," said Barbara Handschu, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "The outcome is hard to predict. You can give the courts a number of factors to consider, but you never know how it's going to strike a particular judge."

Last year, the state Supreme Court reaffirmed the 2000 statute, noting that "the lower courts' inconsistent application of [the relocation statute] demonstrates that our guidance is necessary. Issues surrounding the interpretation of [the statute] are likely to recur given the frequency of dissolution, joint custody and relocation in today's society."

The court reiterated that judges must consider all the factors cited by the statute "because they serve as a balancing test between many important and competing interests and circumstances," the decision notes.

"We haven't solved the relocation problem," said Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center. "But the statute made it easier for courts to sort through this."

Though unfair anecdotes kept popping up, a small, unscientific review of King County relocation cases in 2003 didn't find a strong bias, said Janet Helson, now an attorney with the Seattle firm Skellenger Bender.

While working for Columbia Legal Services, Helson found 126 relocation notices filed in King County from January to mid-June 2003. The other parent objected in just a third of the cases.

Helson suspects many uncontested moves were around Puget Sound and didn't disrupt the existing parenting plan or involved parents with little visitation time. More than two-thirds of the objections were to out-of-state moves.

More than a third of the contested cases went to trial, while nearly four in 10 reached a settlement. Ultimately, the move was permitted in 40 percent of the cases and denied in nearly one in five cases. (The remainder were still pending or withdrawn.)

In an admittedly small sample, "overall, I thought it really looked like the statute was applied in a pretty balanced way," Helson said.

Another battle

If a move is challenged, parents may face an intensive court hearing with battling research and comparisons of school districts and neighborhoods. The statute "hasn't saved the trouble we hoped to save," Stone said. "In some cases, it's a second trial on custody."

Parents can agree to restrict moves in their parenting plan but this "prior agreement" is just one factor a judge will consider. Some attorneys say it's possible to include incentives such as higher spousal maintenance (alimony) if a parent agrees to stay in the area. However, "you cannot, by contract, take away the court's ultimate jurisdiction over children," Margulies explains in his book.

There's also a gray area for parents who split time 50-50. Since the relocation statute applies to "a person with whom the child resides a majority of time," there's no clear presumption when neither has a "majority." Indeed, fathers concerned about a possible future move push for more equal time than they might have otherwise, some attorneys said.

"The more time the parent has with a child, the better chance they have of opposing a move," noted attorney Mary Wechsler of the Seattle firm Wechsler Becker.

The costs

In most cases, kids cope and adjust to moving or staying. But "neither divorce nor relocation comes without some psychological and emotional cost," said Hutchins-Cook. "It's really more about coming up with ideas to manage the damage, as opposed to eliminating it."

Parents excited about a new job focus on the positives, such as a nicer house and better schools. "Often there are very compelling reasons why a move is a good thing for a parent," Hutchins-Cook said. "Parents really do believe their life will go better and if they're happier, contented and settled, they know how that will trickle down to their kids.

"But they can't allow themselves to stop there. They have to think, 'What is it going to cost my child?' "

Children may have to deal with extensive travel, awkward transitions to the other parent's home and spending nearly all their summer and vacations away from their primary home. Preteens and teens especially balk at leaving friends, sports teams or jobs, while young children may be homesick.

Even a move within the state can be disruptive. George had one Seattle dad who faced a 12-hour commute via ferry and car to pick up and return his child in Port Angeles.

The parent whose children move sacrifices not only quantity of time, but the more casual, day-to-day interactions such as sports games and school visits.

"A Christmas card and a week in the summer doesn't cut it for bonding," noted one father, who followed his ex-wife from Montana to Seattle after tiring of monthly 700-mile trips. He spent $400 to $500 each weekend for the hotel and travel.

"If maintaining a relationship with kids is a priority, fathers need to go where their children are," said the dad, whose kids are 8 and 4. "If I had to do it again, I would have packed up and moved with them within a year."

A moving parent should expect to give up most of a child's vacation time, as well share transportation costs, Margulies said.

When moves are denied, it's often because a parent was already troubled (such as drug use) or children have strong relationships or ties to the community. In one case, a pre-teen boy was preparing for his Bar Mitzvah here and was close to his father, friends and grandparents. "It was, 'What would he be ripped away from if he moved?' " George said.

Rather than fight in court, the best way to head off a potential move is to keep a good relationship with children and an ex-spouse, Margulies said. "Generally speaking, with cooperative, joint parenting, it's unusual for one parent to decide to bust out," he said. "It's more likely seen in situations where the relationship is antagonistic."

Stephanie Dunnewind: sdunnewind@seattletimes.com or 206-464-2091