Your review of that article completely misses the boat.

The article and the case have nothing to do with the legal issue of "standing." Instead, the Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was not required if the person seeking to prevent the move did not demonstrate a prima facie case as to why the relocation should be denied.

The standard (which in and of itself is wrong) is whether the move would cause irreparable harm. That standard is reduced if teh parties share custody. Irreparable harm acannot be shown by simple general disagreement with the new area where the person will move. It must be an endangerment issue specific to the child.