You are here: / / Criteria for Allowing Parent Relocation

Criteria for Allowing Parent Relocation

In affirming Family Court’s allowing a parent’s relocation, the Second Department explained the criteria:

A parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests …. In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must consider a number of factors, including the children’s relationship with each parent, the effect of the move on contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the child may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move …. Inasmuch as “[t]he weighing of these various factors requires an evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of all the parties involved” …, the Family Court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference and its decision will be upheld if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record… . Matter of Pietrafesa v Pietrafesa, 2013 NY Slip Op 05082, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY AFTER RECEIVING A NOTE INDICATING THAT A JUROR COULD NOT CONTINUE, INSTEAD THE JUDGE REPLACED THE JUROR WITH AN ALTERNATE WITHOUT AN INQUIRY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, REMITTED FOR A CONTINUED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY CPLR 3211(a)(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED OUT OF STATE, PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Turn Over Impeachment Evidence Re: a Central Prosecution Witness Required Vacation of the Conviction
Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should Have Been Vacated Upon Compliance with the Conditions of the Suspended Judgment

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Court committed reversible error by depriving father of his right to... Factual Question About Whether Family Court Had Jurisdiction Over Visitation...