In Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father’s request to relocate with his children from New York to South Carolina. The case addressed the legal standard for relocation, the factors courts must consider when a custodial parent seeks to move with children, and how the evidence presented can affect the court’s determination. It also involved questions about the economic, educational, and family support implications of relocation, as well as how parental access schedules can be adapted to maintain the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the children.
Background Facts
The parents, who were never married, had two children, born in 2012 and 2016. In April 2017, they entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement that gave the father sole legal and residential custody of the children. The stipulation provided the mother with supervised parental access.
The father and children lived in a home in New York that belonged to the father’s grandmother. In November 2021, the father filed a petition to modify the 2017 stipulation to allow him to relocate with the children to South Carolina. He testified that he could no longer continue renting his grandmother’s house and that the mother contributed only $25 per month in child support for both children.
The father explained that in South Carolina he could secure a job in his field with at least the same pay as in New York and that his living expenses would be lower. He also had extended family in South Carolina, including the paternal grandmother, who was a certified behavioral analyst and special education administrator. She had already been assisting the father in addressing one of the children’s special needs.
The father testified that he had been the children’s primary caregiver since 2017 and that the mother was not involved in their daily lives, education, or healthcare. The relocation, however, would reduce the mother’s in-person time with the children. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the father’s petition. The father appealed.
Issue
The issue was whether the father met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that relocating with the children to South Carolina would be in their best interests.
Holding
The Appellate Division held that the father had met his burden. The court reversed the Family Court’s decision, granted the father’s petition to relocate, and sent the matter back to Family Court to create a post-relocation parental access schedule for the mother.
Rationale
Under Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, a parent seeking to relocate with a child must prove that the move would be in the child’s best interests. The court must consider multiple factors, including:
-
Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move.
-
The quality of the relationships between the child and each parent.
-
The impact of the move on the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent.
-
The degree to which the move might enhance the custodial parent’s and the child’s life economically, emotionally, and educationally.
-
The feasibility of preserving the noncustodial parent’s relationship through visitation arrangements.
The appellate court found that the Family Court’s denial was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The father demonstrated that remaining in New York was financially unsustainable and that relocation would allow him to maintain employment in his field at comparable pay while lowering his living expenses. He also had a strong support network in South Carolina, including family members who could assist with childcare and special educational needs.
Regarding the mother’s relationship with the children, the evidence showed that the father had been their primary caregiver for several years and that the mother had limited involvement in their lives. While the relocation would impact her in-person access, the court noted that Family Court could design a visitation schedule that would preserve and foster her relationship with the children.
Balancing all the Tropea factors, the appellate court concluded that relocation was in the children’s best interests. The father’s ability to provide stable housing, maintain employment, reduce living costs, and rely on extended family support outweighed the reduction in the mother’s physical access, especially where alternative arrangements for contact could be implemented.
Conclusion
Matter of Scotto v. Alexander illustrates how New York courts apply the relocation standard when a custodial parent seeks to move with children out of state. It shows that courts will closely examine the custodial parent’s financial stability, the potential for educational and emotional support in the new location, and the impact on the children’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. Where a move can be shown to improve stability and resources without severing the noncustodial parent’s connection, relocation may be approved.
If you are seeking to relocate with your child or to oppose a relocation request, it is important to present clear evidence addressing each factor the court must consider. A New York family lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can explain the relocation process, help you gather the necessary evidence, and represent you in court to protect your rights and your child’s best interests.