New York Family Law Blog
In 2021, both Alex Wright and Sanchel Burke filed custody petitions in the Family Court, Kings County. The case involved their child, who had moved with the mother from Brooklyn to Binghamton. The father sought sole legal and physical custody, and the mother also sought sole legal and physical custody. A key question was whether the court could require the mother to move back to New York City as a condition of keeping custody. The court was also tasked with setting a parental access schedule for the father that took into account the child’s best interests.
Background Facts
The parties never married and are the parents of one child. The father lived in Brooklyn, while the mother and child moved to Binghamton in 2021. Following that move, both parents filed petitions for sole legal and physical custody.
In March 2023, after a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody. However, the order included two conditions: that the mother relocate with the child back to New York City and that the child be enrolled in a school in Brooklyn within a 20-minute commute from the father’s residence. The court stated that if the mother did not meet these conditions, custody would be transferred to the father.
The Family Court also set a parental access schedule for the father based on the assumption that the mother and child would be living in New York City. The mother appealed this decision, arguing that requiring her to relocate as a condition of custody was not supported by the record.
The Appellate Division granted the mother’s motion to stay enforcement of the relocation requirement while the appeal was pending. Under this temporary arrangement, the father’s parental access rights were guided by an earlier temporary order from November 2021. The appeal focused on whether the relocation condition was justified and whether the custody award should remain in place without it.
Issue
The main issue was whether the Family Court properly required the mother to relocate with the child to New York City as a condition for retaining sole legal and physical custody.
Holding
The Appellate Division reversed the part of the Family Court’s order that imposed the relocation condition. The court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody without requiring her to move to New York City and remitted the case to the Family Court to set a parental access schedule based on the mother’s current location.
Rationale
When determining custody, New York courts look to the child’s best interests by reviewing the totality of the circumstances. This includes factors such as stability, the quality of each parent’s home environment, past performance in caring for the child, the relative fitness of each parent, and the child’s wishes.
In cases where relocation has already happened before the custody case begins, the strict relocation factors from relocation petitions do not apply. Instead, relocation is just one of many factors considered. Here, the relocation from Brooklyn to Binghamton was a fact for the court to weigh, but it was not the sole determining factor.
The record showed that the mother had consistently cared for the child, that the child was doing well in school in Binghamton, and that the child had made friends there. Testimony also indicated the importance of stability for the child. The child’s wishes were also considered. These factors supported awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody.
The Family Court had based its relocation condition largely on concern that living in Binghamton would harm the child’s relationship with the father. However, the Appellate Division found that there was not enough evidence to support the conclusion that a move back to New York City was necessary for the child’s best interests. The court noted that a liberal parental access schedule could maintain a meaningful relationship between the father and the child even if the child continued to reside in Binghamton.
Because the parental access schedule set by the Family Court was tied to the relocation requirement, it could not remain in place. The Appellate Division sent the case back to the Family Court to create a new parental access schedule based on the child’s current residence. The court also stated that the parties should follow the November 2021 temporary order until the new schedule is set and that travel costs should be shared according to the economic realities of the case.
Conclusion
The decision reinforced that when relocation has already occurred, the court must weigh it alongside all other best interest factors rather than treating it as a separate, controlling test. If you are involved in a custody dispute or facing conditions that may affect where you live with your child, it is important to understand how New York courts apply the best interests standard. These cases often turn on the specific facts presented, including your history of caring for your child and your ability to maintain their stability. Speaking with an experienced New York family lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you understand your rights, prepare your case effectively, and navigate court procedures. The firm can provide guidance tailored to your situation and work to protect your relationship with your child while pursuing an outcome that serves their best interests.