Maryland

Statutory framework; factor structure: 16. Maryland Rule 9-204.2(d), as amended effective July 1, 2026, requires the court reviewing the parties' joint statement to address the § 9-201(a) factors and articulate findings under § 9-201(b).

Authority

Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§ 9-201, 9-103 (2025)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

16

Operative language

may consider, shall make findings

Catch-all language

yes, § 9-201(a)(16)

Presumptions in the original survey

None in § 9-201

Child's voice / age rule

No fixed preference age; “age-appropriate” under § 9-201(a)(15); at 16, child may petition to modify an existing order under § 9-103

Child's voice qualification

No fixed preference age; “age-appropriate” under § 9-201(a)(15). At sixteen, a child subject to an existing custody order may petition to modify it in the child's own name under § 9-103. The court must hold a hearing, but the requested placement does not control.

Compare best interests nationally

"6-month separation," "irreconcilable differences," "mutual consent"

Authority

Md. Code, Fam. Law § 7-103

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"6-month separation," "irreconcilable differences," "mutual consent"

Other grounds and proof conditions

none (0)

Separation

6 months "without interruption"; same roof qualifies if the parties "have pursued separate lives," § 7-103(b)

Timing

none in § 7-103

Relief without dissolution

No; limited divorce (§ 7-102) repealed by 2023 Md. Laws ch. 645

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Equal footing applies after the party seeking modification establishes a material change. Ninety-day notice exists only if the court orders it.

Authority

Fam. Law 9-106, 9-202(b)

Court test

general best-interest factors (no relocation-specific list)

Burden classification

equal burden (neither parent favored)

Notice classification

court-ordered only

Trigger classification

any move (no distance threshold)

Effect of silence

No consequence of silence specified in § 9-106; a qualifying petition triggers an expedited hearing.

What the court weighs

Maryland uses the general best-interest framework. Domingues v. Johnson, 323 Md. 486 (1991), recognizes that relocation may support modification without a bright-line rule. Braun v. Headley, 131 Md. App. 588, 605–09 (2000), explains the parents' equal footing after the material-change threshold. Since October 1, 2025, Family Law § 9-201 supplies sixteen factors the court may consider, with findings required under subsection (b).

Who carries the burden

Neither parent bears a burden to prove which arrangement serves the child (Braun). The party seeking modification must show a material change first. No shifting.

Notice and safety exceptions

Notice is required only if the court includes it in the custody or visitation order. Family Law § 9-106(a)(1) permits a requirement of at least 90 days' advance written notice to the court, the other party, or both. The court sets the form and content. Under subsection (b), the court must waive notice on a showing that notice would expose the child or either party to abuse, or for other good cause. Subsection (c) permits a defense to a notice violation where an earlier move was necessary for financial or other extenuating circumstances and the required notice was given within a reasonable time after learning of the necessity to relocate.

Which moves trigger the rule

Any relocation of the permanent residence of the party or child, within or outside Maryland. No mileage threshold in the codified text (a '40 or more miles' phrase in the 2023 bill was struck). Separately, 9-202(b): a parent's proposal to relocate in a way that would make physical custody impracticable is a material change.

Objections and the effect of silence

Petition filed within 20 days of the written notice: court 'shall set a hearing on an expedited basis' (a)(4)(i). Since October 1, 2023, any petition on a proposed relocation that would significantly interfere with the other parent's ability to maintain the predetermined parenting schedule also gets an expedited hearing (a)(4)(ii). Statute does not say silence authorizes the move.

The modification threshold

Yes by statute since October 1, 2025: Fam. Law 9-202(b) makes a relocation proposal that would cause physical custody to be impracticable a material change. Before that, common law (Domingues, Braun: 'relocation of a child may constitute a change in circumstances').

Other qualifications

The 90-day notice is not mandatory. It exists only if the court writes it into the order.

Important qualification

Equal footing applies after the party seeking modification establishes a material change. Ninety-day notice exists only if the court orders it.

Burden summary

Neither parent favored on best interests, after a material change is established.

Notice summary

At least 90 days, only if ordered

Trigger summary

Any move

Compare parental relocation nationally