Opinion
File No. CN13-01136 CPI No(s) 18-14585
04-15-2019
A-- H---- - ------ ------ ----------, -- ----- Petitioner v. B---- H---- -- ---- ------ ----------, -- ----- Respondent
Petitioner Attorney Edward Curley, Esquire Respondent Attorney Laura Brooks, Esquire
Nature of Proceeding
Petition to Modify Custody Petitioner Attorney
Edward Curley, Esquire Respondent Attorney
Laura Brooks, Esquire Date of Decision:
Date Mailed/Emailed: ORDER - PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY
Before the HONORABLE JANELL S. OSTROSKI, Judge of the Family Court of the State of Delaware, is the Petition to Modify Custody filed on May 17, 2018, by A-- H----, (herein "Mother"), represented by Edward Curley, Esquire, against B---- H---- (herein "Father"), represented by Laura Brooks, Esquire, in the interest of T---- H----, born May --, 20--, and J--- H----, born August --, 20--, (herein "minor children"). The Court held a hearing on February 25, 2019, and heard testimony from both parties, as well as Dr. Lani Nelson-Klupko (Mother's therapist), W---- T----- (an employee where Father works), and T----- G---- (a former employee where Father works).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The parties were married on March 24, 2000, and divorced in February, 2013. Mother filed a Petition for Custody in December, 2012. The Petition was resolved when the parties entered a Stipulation agreeing to joint custody and shared residence with the intention of having the children spend as much quality time with each parent as possible and keeping the schedule as consistent as possible from week to week and month to month. Mother filed a Petition to Modify Custody on January 6, 2014. With the help of their attorneys, they reached an agreement on the record before Judge Connor on June 5, 2014. "The parties agreed that the residential custody shall continue to be equally shared but without a specific weekly or inter-week schedule during the school year, due to father's work schedule." Father later filed a Petition to Modify Visitation and alleged that Mother failed to cooperate in Father's efforts to obtain a passport for the children. The Petition was resolved by agreement. Mother filed the instant Petition to Modify Custody on May 15, 2018, indicating that Father was moving to Florida and asking that she be awarded primary residence of both children.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
The parties were married in California in March, 2000. After having some problems in their relationship, they decided to move to Delaware. The parties disagree as to why they moved to Delaware. Father indicates that he thought their relationship needed a fresh start and Mother argues that Father moved them to Delaware because, unbeknownst to her, he was having an affair. Father moved to December, 2011, and Mother and the children followed in February, 2012. Mother claims that upon arriving in Delaware she learned that Father was having an affair and the parties instantly began living in separate bedrooms but did not physically begin living separate until December, 2012. They were divorced in February, 2013, on the grounds of Father's misconduct. While Father admits that he had an affair, he insists that wasn't the reason why he proposed they moved to Delaware and argued that he wanted Mother to be closer to her father. When the parties physically separated, Mother moved out of the marital residence and Father remained in the marital residence. In September, 2015, Father left the marital residence and moved to Earleville, Maryland. This new home was still close enough to Mother's home that the parties were able to continue enjoying shared residence.
Mother is 43 years old and owns a four-bedroom home in Middletown, Delaware where she lives with the boys. After ending a 5-year relationship in March, 2018, Mother began dating her current paramour, B--- S-----, in June, 2018, and he moved into her home in October, 2018. He occasionally stays in his home in Pennsylvania as he works in Philadelphia. Mother works from home for a company called S------ selling products over the phone. She indicated that it is important for her to be close to New York as she must travel to New York for a day trip every 6 to 8 weeks. However, she testified that her employer has indicated she would be allowed to continue working from home if she were to live in Florida but that she would still be required to come to New York once every 6 to 8 weeks at her expense. Mother testified that she currently makes $70,000-$75,000 per year. Mother has a sister who lives approximately two hours away in Pennsylvania who she sees a couple of times per year. Mother's father has several homes. He lives in Pennsylvania from August to December, Florida (about two hours from Clearwater) from January to May, and Long Island, New Jersey from May to mid-August. Mother lives with maternal grandfather during the summer and the boys stay there with her during her weeks.
Father currently rents a home in Earleville, Maryland where he lives with his mother on his visitation weeks. When it is not his week, Father lives in an apartment rented by his employer in Clearwater, Florida. Father testified that he is not in a relationship. He did, however, concede that he had an affair that caused the marriage to end but asserts that their marriage was in trouble regardless of whether he had an affair.
Father is the Vice President of Marketing for a company called P---------s F--------. In the Spring of 2018, Father's employer notified him that all senior management team members were expected to relocate to Clearwater, Florida where the company's headquarters is located. T----- G----, a former co-worker of Father's and also a member of the senior management team testified that he told the company that he could not relocate to Florida and proposed a commuting schedule. He was subsequently fired without any negotiations. W---- T-----, the Senior Vice President of Finance at Father's company also testified. He confirmed Father's testimony that all senior management team members are expected to relocate to Florida and that Father is the last member of the senior management team who has not already relocated or not in the process of relocating to Florida. He indicated that the company is willing to write a letter of reference for Father to find employment elsewhere if he does not relocate to Florida. Father earns approximately $150,000 per year plus bonuses and benefits such as a company car. Father's company has offered to pay the relocation expenses for Father and Mother as well as to pay 50% of the private school tuition of the school of their choice for both boys through the 12th grade and Father has offered to take responsibility for the other half.
T---- started attending St. ----'s school in September, 2012. At that time, J--- was not school-age but he started at St. ----'s for pre-k at the appropriate age. Both children like St. ----'s and are doing well there. T---- is in ------ grade and this will be his last year at St. ----'s. He will need to choose a high school for the 2019-2020 school year. Mother wants T---- to attend The ------- School in Centerville, Maryland which is a private school approximately 45 minutes from Mother's home with a tuition of approximately $24,000 per year. Mother claims she has procured financial aid of $14,000 per year and will be able to pay the remaining $10,000 per year by herself. However, she admits that the financial aid was based on her salary alone as she did not disclose Father's income and that she would be dependent on Father's child support payment to meet this obligation. J--- is in the ------ grade and will continue to attend St. ----'s if he continues to reside in Delaware.
Father has explored private schools in Florida. He proposes that T---- attend ------- -------- Academy and J--- attend ---------- Preparatory School. Both schools cost approximately $24,000 per year (prior to considering any amount Father's company pays toward the tuition). The boys have toured the schools. T---- reported that the school is nice and he thinks he would like it. Father reports that J--- was excited when he toured his school. Father has invited Mother to Florida to visit the schools but Mother has not accepted the offer. She testified that she looked at the schools online.
Further description of the relevant facts in this case are discussed in the analysis of the best interest factors below.
LEGAL STANDARD
The parties' current Order was entered by agreement. Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 729(b), the Court may modify an Order entered by consent of all parties concerning the legal custody or residence of a child at any time in accordance with the best interest factors.
13 Del. C. § 722 provides:
(a)The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all of the relevant factors including:
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
(b) The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child's primary residential parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential parent that does not affect his or her relationship with the child.
In this case, the parties agree that they should continue having joint custody and shared residence. They don't agree on where the children should live. Father wants the children to move to Florida. Mother wants the children to stay in Delaware. While the parents disagree where the children should live, both parents have indicated that they will live wherever the children are living. Father testified that he will quit his job and stay in the Delaware area if the children are not permitted to move to Florida. Mother testified that she will move to Florida if the children are permitted to move to Florida. The primary dispute in this case is the issue of relocation not custody and residence. Therefore, the Court will treat this case as a relocation case and consider the factors set forth in the Model Relocation Act in its analysis in addition to the best interest factors. Furthermore, based on the sworn statements of the parties, the Court will assume that the parties are going to live in the same vicinity and continue having joint custody and shared residence when analyzing all factors.
§ 405, Proposed Model Relocation Act ("Model Act"), 10 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law 1, *18 (1998).
§ 722 FACTORS
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
The parties agree that if they are living in the same area, they should have shared residence and the current schedule should remain in place. However, Father's employer is now requiring him to relocate to Clearwater, Florida. Father wants the children and Mother to relocate there as well. Mother does not want to relocate to Florida and opposes the children relocating to Florida. If the children are permitted to move to Florida and Mother does not move, Father wants primary residence of the children in Florida with Mother having the majority of the summer, school breaks, long weekends, and possibly weekend visits once per month. He indicated he is willing to pay the expense of flying the children to Delaware to visit with Mother. If the children are not permitted to move to Florida and Father decides to relocate to Florida without the children, Mother wants primary residence of the children in Delaware and proposes Father have the same contact schedule he is offering her. However, Father stated on the record that if the children are not permitted to relocate to Florida, he will quit his job and stay in the Delaware area. Mother also stated on the record that if the children are permitted to relocate to Florida, she will move to Florida. Therefore, the Court is assuming that the parents will be living in the same vicinity of each other for purposes of the best interest analysis. The Court finds this factor is neutral with respect to the issue of relocation.
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
The parties did not ask the Court to interview J--- as he is young and quite anxious over this decision. The Court did interview T----. T---- likes attending St. ----'s and likes being with his friends in Delaware. He also likes the time he spends with Father in Florida and indicated that the school he toured was really nice and he was especially happy about the fact that it had a pilot program as he wants to be a pilot when he grows up. He could not and would not tell the Court where he wanted to live. His main concern was that he wanted to continue to go to school with his friends. He indicated that his first choice if he were to stay in Delaware is to attend The ------- School. However, he reported that he only has two friends who are considering going to ------- and, at the time of the interview, they had not committed to going to that school. The rest of his friends are going to MOT Charter but he indicated that he did not think that MOT Charter was the right choice for him. Therefore, it appears that regardless of whether he stays in Delaware or goes to Florida, he may not be attending school with his friends.
T---- likes living with his Mother and gets along with her current boyfriend. He enjoys going to Long Island, New Jersey in the summer and playing tennis and going sailing at his summer camps there. For the past two years, the boys have alternated time with each parent every two weeks in the summer. When they are with their Mother, they are in Long Island, New Jersey and, when they are with their Father, they are in Florida. T---- indicated that he liked the arrangement in the summer but that two weeks sometimes was too long to be without the other parent. T---- also indicated that he enjoys the time in Florida with his Father and he admitted that there was more to do in Florida than in Delaware. However, he was torn because he likes the snow and enjoys skiing and he recognizes that he can't do that in Florida.
T---- indicated that he gets along with "Father's girlfriend". Father's girlfriend has two children and T---- reports that he and J--- get along with these children. He reported that they often stay at Father's girlfriend's house when they are in Florida and that other times Father's girlfriend stays at Father's place with them. When he described the sleeping arrangements in each home, he indicated that Father and his girlfriend sleep in the same bedroom when they stay at each other's place. It is clear to the Court that T---- believes Father is in a relationship with this woman. So, contrary to Father's testimony, it appears he does in fact have a girlfriend.
In summary, T---- was unable to give the Court a decision as to where he wanted to live. He appeared terribly conflicted over the situation. Therefore, the Court gives this factor little weight.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
There is no dispute that both children have an excellent relationship with both parents.
T---- reported that he likes Mother's current boyfriend but did not like her last boyfriend who was living in the home. He also reported that he does not see Mother's sister very often and, therefore, it does not appear that it would disrupt that relationship if the children were permitted to move to Florida. The maternal grandfather spends his time in three different states: Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It appears he lives about two hours from Mother's home in Delaware part of the year, about two hours away from Clearwater, Florida part of the year, and Mother and the children live in his home in New Jersey in the summer. Therefore, it appears that he would have the chance of having the same contact with the children regardless of whether they live in Delaware or Florida.
The children have a relationship with the paternal grandmother who resides in Father's home in Maryland at least during the weeks when the children are there. Father reports that the paternal grandmother will relocate to Florida if he relocates to Florida. Therefore, if the children are permitted to move to Florida, this relationship will not be interrupted.
Father testified that he is not in a relationship. However, contrary to his testimony, T---- told the Court that when the children are visiting with Father they regularly stay over at "his girlfriend's" apartment and that she at times will stay overnight at Father's apartment. T---- further explained that Father and "his girlfriend" sleep in the same bedroom when they stay at each other's home. The Court found T---- credible when he talked about Father having a girlfriend. It is concerning to the Court that Father denies that he is in a relationship when T---- very clearly believes Father if is in a relationship. Nonetheless, it appears the boys get along well with Father's girlfriend and her children. The children seem to have very little contact with any paternal relatives.
After weighing the evidence related to the parents, their significant others, and their relatives, the Court finds that this factor is neutral. With the exception of the significant others of both parents, the children are going to be able to maintain a relationship with both parents and their grandparents regardless of where they live. The problem in this case is more about the parents because both have indicated they are going to live wherever the children live and that means that one of them is going to be living far away from his or her significant other.
4. The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;
It is clear that the children are adjusted to Mother's home and their schools in Delaware. However, T---- will be changing schools next year and it is unknown which school he will attend even if he remains in Delaware. He has friends in Delaware but, as discussed above, it is not clear that these friends will attend the same school that he will be attending next year. J---, on the other hand, will remain at St. ----'s if he resides in Delaware. He is adjusted to St. ----'s and has friends at school.
It also appears clear to this Court that the children are adjusted to Father's home in Maryland as well as his apartment in Florida. Father's lease in Maryland is ending and he will need to relocate regardless of whether he moves to Florida or stays in the Delaware area. Father will probably also be moving out of his apartment if he relocates to Florida because he will be looking to buy a house in the Clearwater area.
While the Court recognizes that T---- wants to remain close to his friends, the Court is not convinced that is going to happen even if the children remain in Delaware as there was no clear evidence that he had many, if any, friends planning to attend the same school he wants to attend. Given that the children have been living in Delaware for several years and they have friends here, the Court must find this factor slightly supports the children remaining in Delaware. However, the Court will give this factor the appropriate weight for the reasons stated herein.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Mother's therapist testified about her progress in therapy. Mother has been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and has been in counseling with Dr. Lani Nelson-Lupko since April, 2013. Dr. Nelson-Lupko testified that Mother is a very good patient in that she accepts instruction and wants to do well. She currently sees Mother approximately every two weeks and coordinates with Dr. Catherine Rowen, a psychiatrist, who prescribes Mother medication for her anxiety. She further testified that, while Mother has had her ups and downs, she is currently stable in her treatment. Mother reaches out when she has a trigger that increases her anxiety and requests additional sessions as needed. It does not appear to the Court that Mother's Disorder is impacting her ability to care for these children. However, if she were required to move to Florida, the move would presumably cause her a lot of anxiety as she has no friends or support network in the Clearwater area. Based on Dr. Nelson-Lupko's testimony that Mother is stable in her recovery and has the tools to handle situations that cause her anxiety, the Court is confident that Mother will be able to handle any adjustments she is required to make.
Father reports that he is healthy. It appears he has no condition that would affect his ability to care for these children. It also appears that both children are healthy.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds this factor is neutral.
6. Past and present compliance by both parties with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
13 Del. C. § 701(a) states in relevant part: "The father and mother are the joint natural guardians of their minor child and are equally charged with the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and education."
Both parents have been complying with their rights and responsibilities as parents. Despite living in different states and Father living in Florida on his off weeks, they have had a shared residence arrangement since they separated in 2012. Both have been actively involved in the children's lives when possible. Understandably, there have been times when Father missed events because he was out of town working. Notwithstanding the fact that the parties have differences that caused their marriage to fail, they have done an excellent job co-parenting these children and cooperating with sometimes difficult schedules that have allowed these children to develop a good relationship with both parents. The Court commends them in this regard. Therefore, the Court gives this factor little weight as it relates to whether the children should be allowed to move to Florida but the Court does find that this factor strongly supports the parties having shared residence.
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
13 Del. C. § 706A in relevant part states:
(a) Any evidence of a past or present act of domestic violence, whether or not committed in the presence of the child, is a relevant factor that must be considered by the court in determining the legal custody and residential arrangements in accordance with the best interests of the child.--------
Neither party presented any evidence of domestic violence. Therefore, the Court finds this factor is neutral.
8. The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
The Court has reviewed the Delaware criminal histories of both parents, Mother's boyfriend's criminal history from Pennsylvania, and Father's criminal history from Maryland and Florida and has no concerns. Therefore, the Court finds this factor is neutral.
MODEL RELOCATION FACTORS
1. The nature , quality , extent of involvement , and duration of the child's relationship with the person proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating person , siblings , and other significant persons in the child's life;
The children have an excellent relationship with both parents and a good relationship with the significant others of both parents as well as the relatives on both sides of their family. It appears they will be able to continue their relationship with the paternal grandmother and maternal grandfather regardless of where they live as paternal grandmother plans to live wherever Father lives and maternal grandfather has three different houses. Further, it appears that they have little relationship with the maternal aunt and any other paternal relatives. Depending on whether the children live, in Delaware or Florida, their relationship with either parents significant other will likely be impacted as there was no testimony that the significant others would be willing to move as well. Given that neither parent seems to be in a long-term, committed relationship, the Court is less concerned with these relationships than it would be with the parents or biological relatives. This factor does not support either parent's position over the other and, therefore, the Court gives this factor little weight.
2. The age , developmental stage , needs of the child , and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical , educational , and emotional development , taking into consideration any special needs of the child;
Neither child has any special needs and both children are at an age where they could adapt to living in a new state. Significantly, T---- is at an age where a move would be a natural break in his education because he will be starting high school next year. Furthermore, Father's employer has offered to pay for 50% of private school tuition for both boys through 12th grade and this could provide a significant educational opportunity for them. On the other hand, if the children remain in Delaware, it is not clear to the Court that the parties will be able to afford to keep them in private school if Father loses his job. The Court finds this factor would support allowing the children to relocate to Florida.
3. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating person and the child through suitable [visitation] arrangements , considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;
As the parties have stated that they plan to live in the same state as the children and agree that they should continue shared residence, their relationship will be preserved regardless of the Court's decision. It does appear, however, that if the children are permitted to move to Florida, the family will be in a better financial position given Father's salary and employment benefits which include private school tuition.
4. The child's preference , taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
The Court does not know J---'s preference and T---- was unable to give the Court a clear answer as to what his preference is. The Court gives this factor little weight.
5. Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the person seeking the relocation , either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the non-relocating person;
Father is the party seeking the relocation and there is no evidence that he has attempted to thwart the relationship of the children with their Mother. To the contrary, Father appears to have bent over backwards to preserve the children's relationship with their Mother and has offered many concessions in the hopes of making this situation work out for everyone. The Court finds this factor would support allowing the children to move to Florida.
6. Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the custodial party seeking the relocation and the child , including but not limited to , financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;
If Father maintains his current job by relocating to Florida, his and the children's general quality of life will not "be enhanced" but will be maintained. It is of note that Mother's general quality of life will also be financially maintained as Father will be able to afford his current child support payment if he retains his job. And, it appears there is a significant educational opportunity if the children are allowed to relocate as Father's employer is willing to pay for 50% of private school tuition for both boys until they reach 12th grade. If Father loses his job, both parties and the children will suffer. The Court finds this factor would support allowing the children to move to Florida.
7. The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation; and
Father is seeking permission for the children to move to Florida because his employer is requiring him to relocate. Mother opposes the relocation because she believes the children have settled into their life in Delaware and are comfortable in Delaware. They have friends here and they like their schools and community. Both parties make good arguments for their positions but Father's argument has more merit. J--- is relatively young and should be able to adapt and T---- will be starting a new school in the fall regardless of where he lives and he will need to make new friends in either situation.
8. Any other factor affecting the best interests of the child
The Court understands that Mother did not, and may still not, trust Father that his employer is requiring him to relocate to Florida given the history of their relationship and Father's lack of trustworthiness as it relates to his affair and his current relationship. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the fact that the Court finds Father was less than credible with respect to his relationship with his current girlfriend, the Court does find his witnesses credible when they testified about his employer requiring him to relocate to Florida. The Court does believe that Father is in danger of losing his job if he does not relocate to Florida. If he loses his job, it is more likely than not that he will have a difficult time finding a job in this area that pays a similar salary and benefit package to his current job. If he loses his job, he will not have the income to pay the child support currently ordered and Mother will not have that income to support her plan to pay for T---- to attend the private school in this area. The children's lives will be significantly impacted if Father loses his job. To the contrary, Mother works from home and is not in danger of losing her job if she were to decide to relocate to Florida.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the best interest factors above indicates that the majority of the factors give the Court little guidance as to whether the children should be permitted to move to Florida. Factor (4) was the only factor that was not found to be neutral and the Court gave little weight to this factor for the reasons stated herein. Given the weight given this factor, the Court is not convinced that this factor should be dispositive of the relocation issue. In this instance, the Court found the Model Relocation Factors to be more helpful.
With respect to the Model Relocation Factors, for the reasons stated herein, the Court found that factors (1) and (4) were neutral and that all of the remaining factors supported the Court finding that the children should be permitted to relocate to Florida. While the Court recognizes that it is not bound by the Model Relocation Factors, in its discretion, the Court finds them particularly helpful in this instance. The Court sympathizes with Mother that she might not want to move to Florida, but the Court cannot ignore the significant financial advantages of the children moving to Florida when there are very few advantages of the children remaining in Delaware. Father's job is in Florida. Mother works from home and can work from home in Florida and she has indicated a willingness to relocate. One of the two children would be changing schools next year anyway. The children's relationship with extended family would not be affected in this instance. The Court cannot find that simply because the children have been residing in Delaware for several years they should stay here. Families relocate all the time due to job changes. This family is in a particularly good situation because Father's employer is providing so many benefits with respect to the move. Therefore, the Court finds it is in the children's best interest that they be permitted to move to Florida.
WHEREFORE, the Court enters the following Order:
A. Relocation: The children are hereby permitted to move to Florida any time after the current school year ends so long as they are in Florida in time to start the 2019-2020 school year.
B. For remainder of the 2018- 2019 school year: The children shall remain in Delaware and their current schools. The parties shall continue enjoying shared residence pursuant to the Court's most recent Order of June 5, 2014.
C. For the summer of 2019: The parties shall continue to share time with the children with a two week on/two week off arrangement consistent with the schedule they used in the last two years spending time with Mother in New Jersey or Delaware, depending on where she chooses to stay for the summer, and with Father in Florida.
D. At the start of the 2019-2020 school year: The parties shall resume contact pursuant to the Order of June 5, 2014. The Court is not revising the contact
schedule under that Order as the parties have indicated that they wanted to continue their shared residence arrangement. If Mother changes her mind and decides not to move to Florida and wants the Court to modify the contact schedule to account for the parties living in different states, the Court would consider that to be a modification of visitation which can be filed at any time.
E. Travel expenses: Given that Father's job is the reason that the children are relocating to Florida, the Court finds it appropriate that Father be responsible for the cost of the children's relocation and the cost of any transportation, if any, related to visiting with Mother under this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2019.
/s/ _________
JANELL S. OSTROSKI
Judge cc: Parties, Counsel, File