Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Draft

Outline a custody relocation motion

Builds a relocation motion or objection organized around your state's own relocation test: notice questions first, every factor pinned to evidence, and a long-distance parenting plan concrete enough that a judge could sign it.

About 25 minadvancedFamily, Litigation

Your prompt5,321 characters

Still to fill in: State, court, and relocation statute, The move

RoleYou are a family litigator who has tried relocation cases from both sides and watched most of them turn on two things: whether the notice was right, and whether the moving parent showed up with a real long-distance plan. You build from the statute your state actually uses, you refuse to recite a factor list you have not confirmed, and you never leave the judge asking how the child gets to the airport.What I needA relocation motion outline for Relocating parent: moving to relocate with the child in State, court, and relocation statute, covering the move described below.InputsThe move: The move Current order and actual practice: Current order and what actually happens Proposed long-distance plan: Proposed long-distance plan State, court, statute: State, court, and relocation statute Who I represent: Relocating parent: moving to relocate with the childHow to work this1. Open by naming the governing test: the State, court, and relocation statute relocation statute or controlling case, and which parent carries the burden. Mark it [UNVERIFIED - confirm the statute and burden allocation before filing]. If you cannot name the State, court, and relocation statute test with confidence, say so and build on the factors I supplied rather than importing another state's. 2. Procedure before merits. Notice contents, delivery method, timing, and the objection window decide cases outright. Write each as a question I must verify. Never state a deadline or a required-contents list from memory. 3. Set structure from Relocating parent: moving to relocate with the child. Relocating: good faith, the child's improved circumstances, then the plan. Objecting: the relationship as actually exercised, the specific loss, then the alternative that solves the mover's problem without the move. 4. Under each factor give the fact, the source that proves it, and the witness. Factors with nothing behind them go into a closing "not supported yet" list with what would fix them. 5. Write the long-distance plan as a schedule a judge could sign: named blocks with dates, who books and pays for travel, who accompanies the child, virtual contact in both time zones, makeup time, and how it survives two school calendars. 6. Answer good faith in facts: offer letter, salary, start date, housing, school, family at the destination, then name the one fact that most makes this look like a move about the other parent. 7. Address what the order should say if the court denies, and whether the client moves anyway. Judges ask this from the bench.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Marked [verify] or [safe]: which relocation test you applied, which parent bears the burden, whether the current order is operative, whether notice was properly served. Where this is weakest. The two factors carrying the least evidence, named by heading, plus the one sentence the other side will quote back. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: offer to stay if the court denies. It reads as good faith, but it tells the court the move is optional and the client's need is not real, or take the position that the move happens either way, which forces the court to choose but can read as leverage. And whether to fund all of the child's travel: expensive, and it removes the most common stated ground for denial. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: the written offer letter, the exchange log showing time actually exercised, school data for both districts, airfare quotes, any evaluator or GAL report.Output formatA numbered outline: caption; procedural and notice section with each item flagged for verification; the governing test marked [UNVERIFIED]; dated statement of facts; one heading per factor with fact, source, and witness beneath; the long-distance plan as a signable schedule; relief requested; evidence index; and a "not supported yet" list. Then the four closing sections.Never do this- If this outline would fit any relocation case in any state, it is too generic. Rebuild from this state's test, this order, this destination. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one filing this. - Every statute, case, factor list, notice period, or burden rule must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - confirm before filing]. Never invent a code section, a factor, or a number of days. - Where you do not know State, court, and relocation statute's relocation test, burden allocation, or notice requirements, say you do not know and tell me what to pull. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not pad. Four well-evidenced factors beat eleven recited ones. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I name the governing test and the burden and mark them for verification, or is a notice period, factor list, or case cite sitting here unmarked? - Does every factor heading have a fact and a source under it, or did one become an assertion? - Could a judge sign my long-distance plan as written: dates, payer, and travel logistics all present?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

You now act for the parent staying behind. Your whole theory is that this move is about the new spouse's career rather than the children, you have the exchange log showing every weekend your client exercised, and you will put the airfare math on a demonstrative. Read the outline as the lawyer who has to defeat it. Name the three factor arguments you would attack and the specific record fact you would use against each. Then rewrite those sections so they survive without overstating anything.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

If the motion is granted, the court will want an order it can sign that day. Convert the long-distance plan into a stand-alone proposed parenting plan order: actual dates for the next two calendar years mapped against both school calendars, exchange airports and times, the unaccompanied-minor policy of the carrier, cost allocation with a true-up mechanism, the virtual contact schedule in both time zones, a makeup-time provision, and the notice terms for any future move. Then list the three provisions the other side is most likely to counter and what they will propose instead.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • Your state's relocation statute or controlling case, and who bears the burden under it
  • The operative custody order and the schedule actually exercised over the last year
  • The relocation notice as sent, and the date and form of any objection
  • The written job offer, housing, school, and family support at the destination
  • What air or road travel actually costs and who can pay for it

Watch for

  • Relocation is a separate statutory scheme in many states, with its own notice contents, delivery method, objection window, and burden allocation. Verify every one against the current statute. Never rely on a remembered rule.
  • Which parent bears the burden often turns on custodial status or the percentage of time exercised. Getting it backwards restructures the entire brief and can lose the hearing.
  • Moving with the child before notice runs or before an order issues can forfeit the request and expose the client to contempt or an immediate return order.
  • International moves and moves involving an Indian child add Hague Convention and ICWA layers this outline does not address.
  • The model will import factor lists and standards from other states because they read plausibly. Check every factor against your own statute before it goes in the brief.

What comes back

A numbered outline: caption; a procedural and notice section with every requirement written as an item to verify; the governing relocation test marked [UNVERIFIED]; dated statement of facts; one heading per statutory factor with the fact, its source, and the witness beneath; the proposed long-distance parenting plan written as a signable schedule with travel and cost allocation; relief requested; an evidence index; and a list of factors not yet supported. Followed by Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get
I. Notice and procedure: confirm before anything else. - Relocation notice mailed 3/2/26; objection filed 3/24/26. Confirm against current RCW 26.09.440: required contents of the notice, permitted method of delivery, the objection period, and whether the objection was timely. [UNVERIFIED - pull the current statute; do not rely on the 30-day figure in my file memo.] - Confirm whether an objection filed on 3/24 stays the relocation automatically or requires a separate motion. II. Governing test. Washington's Child Relocation Act applies a rebuttable presumption that relocation will be permitted, and the objecting parent bears the burden of rebutting it against enumerated factors. [UNVERIFIED - confirm the presumption, the burden, and the current factor list before drafting the brief. Do not argue from this framing until verified.] III. Statement of facts. - 2023 final parenting plan: alternating weekends plus Tuesday and Thursday dinners, approximately 35% of overnights. - Exchange log (Ex. C) shows Mr. Ellery exercised 21 of his 26 alternating-weekend blocks in 2025 and 19 of 24 Thursday dinners in the second half of the year. Concede this. It is true and it is the strongest thing about his objection. - Written offer from Duke University dated 2/18/26, Senior Research Scientist, $148,000, start date 8/15/26 (Ex. A). Current salary $91,400 (Ex. B). IV. Factor: relative strength and stability of the child's relationship with each parent. - Fact: twins have lived primarily with mother since separation in 2022; she manages medical, school, and activities. Source: school and pediatric records, Ex. F-G. Witness: Ms. Kalra (mother). - Fact: father's relationship is real and regularly exercised. Source: Ex. C. Do not minimize this; the brief that pretends otherwise loses credibility on everything else. V. Proposed long-distance plan (as a signable schedule). - Summer: father, 8 consecutive weeks beginning the Saturday after the last day of school. - Winter break: alternating, father in odd years, December 26 through January 2. - Spring break: father every year, in Durham or Seattle at his election. - Thanksgiving: father in even years, Wednesday through Sunday. - Four long weekends per year in Durham, father's election on 30 days' notice. - Travel: mother books and pays 100% of the twins' airfare on nonstop RDU-SEA service; twins fly as unaccompanied minors until age 12 under the carrier's policy [UNVERIFIED - confirm current age threshold and fee]; father pays his own travel for Durham visits. - Video contact: Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday, 7:00 p.m. Eastern / 4:00 p.m. Pacific. - Makeup time: any block missed for the child's illness makes up within 60 days at the receiving parent's election. Not supported yet. That the Durham schools are better than Bryant Elementary. I have no comparison data. That maternal family in Durham will provide childcare: no declaration from the sister. That the twins want to move: do not raise this without knowing whether the court will interview them. --- Assumptions I made. That Washington's relocation statute governs and applies a presumption favoring relocation [verify - this is the single most consequential assumption in the outline]. That the 2023 plan is operative and unmodified [verify]. That notice was properly served on 3/2/26 [verify - I have not seen the notice itself]. Where this is weakest. Factor IV. The exchange log cuts against us, and the brief currently handles it with a concession and nothing else. It needs the affirmative fact about who runs the twins' medical and school life, sourced to records, in the same paragraph. Second weakest: the school-quality argument, which is currently an assertion with no data behind it. Cut it or fund the research. What only you can decide. Whether Ms. Kalra offers to stay if the court denies the move. Offering reads as good faith and reassures a judge who is looking for a reason to say no, but it also tells the court the move is optional and the $56,600 salary difference is not a real need. Taking the position that she is going either way forces the court to choose between two custodial outcomes, which sometimes wins, and sometimes gets read as leverage against the children. Also yours: whether she funds all of the twins' airfare. At roughly $2,400 per round trip for two children, four trips a year is $9,600 she does not have, but travel cost is the most common stated reason these requests are denied. What would make this materially better. (1) The current text of RCW 26.09.405-.560 with the factor list, which would let me replace the [UNVERIFIED] framing with the real one. (2) Airfare quotes for the proposed blocks. (3) A declaration from the sister in Durham on childcare. (4) Whether Judge Amini has ruled on relocation with school-age children in the last two years.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Name the test before you argue it.** Relocation is usually its own statute or leading case, not the ordinary best-interest analysis. Identify it, state who carries the burden, and mark the whole framing for verification. 2. **Procedure before merits.** Notice content, timing, and the objection window decide cases outright. Frame these as items to confirm against the current statute, never as a remembered deadline. 3. **Posture drives structure.** The relocating parent leads with good faith and the plan. The objecting parent leads with the relationship that exists now and the alternative that solves the mover's problem without the move. 4. **One factor, one fact, one source.** Every factor gets a specific fact and where it comes from. Factors with nothing behind them go on a separate list, not into the brief. 5. **The plan is the case.** Blocks, travel, who pays, who flies with the child, virtual contact, makeup time, both school calendars. Vagueness here is the most common reason relocation is denied. 6. **Answer good faith with facts.** The offer letter, the salary, the housing, the school, the family at the destination, and the one fact that makes the move look like it is about the other parent. 7. **Answer the question from the bench.** What happens if the court says no.