In the absence of specific related to why the move would be in the best interests of the child, the court denied a parental relocation request. Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

When a parent wants to relocate with their child, they must get the permission of the other parent or of the court. The court will approve such a request to relocate and modification of a custody order if it is in the best interests of the child.

In Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), the petitioner mother sought to modify an existing custody and visitation order, requesting permission to relocate with her child from Ontario County to Monroe County and seeking sole custody. The Family Court dismissed her petitions. On appeal, the mother argued that the court erred in its decision. The appellate court examined the case under the factors set out in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea to determine whether the relocation was in the best interests of the child.

Background Facts
The mother and father of the child previously had a custody and visitation arrangement. The mother filed a petition seeking to modify that arrangement, requesting to relocate with the child to Monroe County and to obtain sole custody. The move, according to the mother, would provide better job opportunities and access to better educational resources for the child. She believed that these changes would benefit the child’s overall well-being. However, the existing custody order included a provision that neither parent could permanently remove the child from the Canandaigua School District without agreement from both parents or a court order.

The father opposed the relocation, arguing that it would disrupt the child’s education and existing relationship with him. He also objected to the mother’s request for sole custody, stating that there had been no change in circumstances that would justify such a modification.

Question Before the Court
The key issues before the court were twofold. First, whether the mother should be granted permission to relocate with the child to Monroe County, based on whether the relocation would be in the best interests of the child. Second, whether the mother had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant modifying the custody arrangement to give her sole custody of the child.

Court’s Decision
The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s decision, affirming the dismissal of the mother’s petition. It concluded that the mother had not met her burden of proof to show that the relocation was in the best interests of the child. Furthermore, the court found that the mother had not demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant revisiting the issue of custody.

Discussion
The court addressed two main aspects of the mother’s appeal: relocation and custody.

Relocation Request:
In cases involving a request for relocation, the court is required to consider all relevant factors to determine whether the move is in the best interests of the child. The analysis stems from the Tropea decision, which guides courts to focus on what would serve the child’s welfare. Factors include the quality of the child’s education, the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, and whether the move would enhance the custodial parent’s economic or emotional well-being.

In this case, the mother claimed that the relocation would provide access to a better school district and improved job prospects for her, which in turn would benefit the child. However, the court found that her argument lacked specifics. The mother did not indicate which particular school district the child would be attending in Monroe County. Without this information, the court could not determine whether the child’s education would improve by relocating.

Moreover, while the mother mentioned the possibility of better employment opportunities, she had no concrete job offer in Monroe County. The court concluded that a potential improvement in employment was insufficient to justify uprooting the child, especially given the existing agreement that the child would remain in the Canandaigua School District unless both parents agreed to a move or the court issued an order. This stipulation, while not determinative, weighed against allowing the relocation.
Custody Request:
The mother also sought sole custody of the child, arguing that circumstances had changed since the original custody arrangement. To modify a custody order, the petitioner must show that there has been a significant change in circumstances that would warrant revisiting the custody arrangement. The court must then assess whether modifying the order would serve the best interests of the child.

In this case, the court found no significant change in circumstances. The mother did not present evidence of any material change that would require the court to reassess the custody arrangement. As a result, the court concluded that the existing joint custody arrangement should remain in place. The mother had failed to meet the burden of proving that a modification was necessary or that sole custody would be in the child’s best interests.

Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the mother’s petition for relocation and sole custody. The mother did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the proposed move to Monroe County would be in the best interests of the child. Additionally, she did not demonstrate a change in circumstances that would justify granting her sole custody. If you are involved in a custody dispute related to relocating with the child, consulting with an experienced parental relocation attorney in New York is essential to ensure that your rights are protected and your case is effectively presented.