Within a matrimonial/custody dispute, Amanda Ritz sought to relocate to Israel with her three children claiming "economic necessity" and that the move would be in the minors' "best interests."
The New York County Supreme Court denied the request, as did the Appellate Division, First Department. While noting that the right of the children and their father to keep in "regular and meaningful contact" did not necessarily control the outcome, the appellate court nevertheless concluded that the long-distance nature of the move would preclude a "normal relationship" and deny Mr. Ritz an involvement in his children's day-to-day lives. Here's how the AD put it:
The telephone, video hook-ups and occasional summer and other visitation would not be a substitute for regular, face-to-face contact between the father and the children, particularly inasmuch as the relocation would significantly curtail his active role in their day-to-day life. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that the parties' resources are such as to facilitate frequent air travel between New York and Israel. Aside from the expense in traveling back and forth, there is no indication how the children would adjust to such a drastic change in their lives, or that any benefits from the contemplated move would outweigh the importance of preserving the children's relationship with their father.
Finally, the court did not look kindly upon Ms. Ritz's "apparent failure to pursue any employment opportunities in New York" and described her necessity claim as "rather suspect."
And what, pray tell, is so awful about the Big Apple?
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision in Ritz v. Ritz, please click on the following link: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_00075.htm