New York Family Law Blog
In Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., the Family Court of Tompkins County addressed two petitions involving custody and parenting time for a child born in 2020. The mother filed a violation petition alleging that the father withheld court-ordered supervised parenting time. The father filed a relocation petition seeking to move with the child to Florida. This case involved application of the legal standard for relocation under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), which requires the moving parent to show that relocation is in the child’s best interests. It also highlights the consequences for withholding court-ordered supervised parenting time, which can include findings of contempt, fines, makeup time, and possible changes to custody.
Background Facts
In September 2022, the parents consented to an order granting the father sole custody and placement of the child, with supervised parenting time for the mother. Parenting time was to be arranged through the parties’ attorneys.
In November 2022, the mother filed a violation petition claiming the father refused to allow her visitation. She proposed her stepfather as a supervisor, but the father rejected him due to past involvement in keeping the child beyond scheduled time. The attorney for the child also opposed that choice. The father and his attorney stated they received no other proposals from the mother.
In January 2023, the father filed a petition seeking permission to relocate with the child to Florida, citing economic improvement, family support from relatives in Florida, and lower childcare costs. The mother opposed the move, citing concerns about reduced contact.
At the hearing, testimony showed that the father had been the primary caregiver for most of the child’s life. The court found the move would provide economic benefits and family assistance. It fashioned an order allowing relocation, granting the mother defined parenting time in Florida and New York, and weekly video calls. The violation petition was dismissed.
Issue
Whether the father willfully violated the September 2022 custody order by denying supervised parenting time to the mother, and whether the father proved that relocating with the child to Florida was in the child’s best interests.
Holding
The court held that the father did not willfully violate the custody order because the mother failed to arrange visits through mutually agreed supervisors. The relocation petition was granted. The father met his burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that relocation to Florida was in the child’s best interests.
Rationale
Violation Petition: The September 2022 order required supervised visits arranged through counsel. The court credited testimony from the father and his attorney that the only supervisor proposed was the mother’s stepfather, who was considered unsuitable due to past conduct. The mother offered no other names. The court found no willful violation because the father did not refuse agreed-upon visits—none were properly arranged.
Relocation Petition: The court applied the Tropea v. Tropea best-interest standard, weighing factors such as each parent’s reasons for or against the move, the impact on the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent, and potential economic, educational, and emotional benefits.
Evidence showed:
-
The father had been the primary caregiver.
-
The move offered modestly higher earnings, more work hours, reduced childcare costs, and no state income tax.
-
The paternal grandmother and stepgrandfather in Florida provided childcare assistance.
-
The mother had not paid child support and had made minimal efforts to maintain contact since March 2022.
The court determined that the move would not prevent ongoing contact, given the order for defined visitation in both states and regular video calls. The paternal grandmother agreed to help facilitate visits. While the court acknowledged the parents’ strained relationship, it found relocation would enhance the father’s ability to care for the child.
The Appellate Division found a sound and substantial basis for the decision. It noted that although the mother had limited parenting time in the past, much of the gap resulted from her own inaction. The court emphasized that arrangements for supervised visits in both states, plus virtual contact, preserved her relationship with the child.
However, the appellate court also addressed the supervision requirement. It held that the record lacked sufficient factual findings to justify continued supervision based on mental health concerns, especially without a diagnosis. The case was remitted for further fact-finding on whether supervision was necessary. The court also encouraged both parties to identify additional supervisors to avoid disruptions in visitation.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the mother’s violation petition, finding that she failed to arrange visits through acceptable supervisors as required by the existing custody order. It also granted the father’s relocation petition, concluding that the move to Florida was in the child’s best interests due to the economic benefits, increased family support, and the father’s role as the primary caregiver. The court crafted a visitation schedule designed to preserve the mother’s relationship with the child through defined parenting time in both New York and Florida, as well as regular video calls. However, the requirement that the mother’s parenting time remain supervised was remitted for further fact-finding, as the record did not contain adequate evidence to justify that restriction. The court emphasized that both parties should work to identify additional supervisors to prevent future disruptions in parenting time.
If you are involved in a family dispute, it is important to take prompt action to understand your legal rights and the options available for protecting your relationship with your child. Custody, visitation, and relocation matters can have a long-term impact on both parents and children, and the court’s decisions will be based on what it determines to be in the child’s best interests. An experienced New York family lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can guide you through each step of the process, help you prepare and present your case effectively, and advocate for arrangements that protect your rights. Contact our office to discuss your situation and learn how to proceed in a way that supports your goals and your child’s well-being.