The case A* v. A* centers on a post-divorce custody dispute where the plaintiff, J* A*, sought court approval to relocate with her children from Suffolk County to Rockland County. This request required modification of a previously agreed-upon settlement, which restricted relocation beyond 30 miles without consent or a court order. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court’s decision, which had denied her motion without a hearing, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
At the heart of this case is the principle that custody arrangements should only be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that impacts the best interests of the children. A* argued that her engagement and plans to move into her fiancé’s larger home constituted such a change. She also pointed to difficulties in her current living situation and escalating tensions between the parents. These factors, if proven, could justify a reassessment of custody arrangements.
The appellate court applied well-established legal standards for relocation, primarily drawn from Matter of Tropea v. Tropea. In such cases, courts must weigh a variety of factors, including each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the effect on the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent, economic and emotional benefits of the relocation, and the feasibility of preserving parental relationships despite the move. Crucially, the court held that the lower court erred in denying A*’s request without holding a hearing. Judicial precedent emphasizes that custody modifications should be determined through a full and fair hearing, particularly when there are disputed facts.
By remitting the case for a hearing, the appellate court reaffirmed the importance of a careful, fact-driven evaluation in custody disputes. This decision ensures that both parties have the opportunity to present evidence and allows the court to independently assess whether relocation serves the best interests of the children. It highlights the balance courts must strike between honoring prior agreements and adapting custody arrangements to changing circumstances.
Who knew moving came with this much baggage?
# # #
DECISION