It can conceivably be all right, in the proper procedural context, to deny a mother’s relocation of the children out of state. But woe betide a trial court that holds it’s in the best interests of the children to live with the mother, provided she stays here. As the Court of Appeals points out in the unpublished opinion in Demuth v. Demuth, 23 VLW 527 (10/7/08), it is absolutely forbidden for a judge to indulge in “pure speculation” that the move, at such time as it might come, would not indeed be just fine and dandy for the best interests of the children. This judge, the Court of Appeals says, should have prohibited the permanent removal of the child from Virginia if he didn’t like it. Setting up an automatic change in custody should a mother move cannot be lawfully done. To the father’s argument that there was nothing speculative at all about the mother’s moving the children to Texas, since she had specifically stated her intent to do that when they went into court in the first place, the Court of Appeals says that there was nothing in the record establishing that the mother was in fact moving, and in fact she had indicated that she would rather stay here than “lose custody.” It is impermissible to assume that the mother will move without filing the relocation notice that the divorce decree required her to file, and should she in fact file and serve that paper, the father can then go into court and seek a custody modification, no matter how recent the last order was. This circuit court abused its discretion by supposedly prejudging the issue.