Recognizing a “special justification,” the New Jersey Supreme Court abandoned the Baures standard for deciding contested relocation disputes and acknowledged such “special justification” is found “where experience teaches that a rule of law has not achieved its intended result.” In Baures v. Lewis, a 2001 decision, the court had authorized a permanent relocation application as requiring first an analysis of changed circumstances and then, if the party moving for removal is the custodial parent, satisfaction of the factors enumerated for cause under N.J.S.A 9:2-2 and proof that the move would not be inimical to the child's interest. The higher best interests standard was not applied, but now in Bisbing v. Bisbing it is restored.

In Baures, the Supreme Court held that if the custodial parent could establish “cause” under the statute and if he or she proved “good faith and that the move would not be inimical to the child's interest,” permanent relocation would be granted. The Baures court held that relocation would be allowed even if such change reduced the objecting parent's visitation, but denied if the relocation had an “adverse effect,” where the “change in visitation [would] not allow the noncustodial parent to maintain his or her relationship with the child.” The court based its decision on social science research, now criticized, that concluded “what is good for the custodial parent is good for the child,” as well as the trend in other state courts in easing requests for relocation. As a result of this lower standard, many parents who had signed property settlement agreements barring such relocation, nevertheless saw their children allowed to relocate across the country at great distances or at lesser distances but at great inconvenience.

In resuming the higher standard of “best interests” for all parents who share legal custody, the court acknowledged that it had never intended to diverge from the best interests standard, which is at the heart of New Jersey's custody statute or to ignore the legislative policy that parents have equal rights in a child custody proceeding. It acknowledged that the social science research that the “primary custodian's welfare is the paramount consideration,” has now been questioned. In addition, despite predictions, the majority of states today utilize the higher standard, a best interests test.