Opinion
10165
10-22-2019
In re DOREEN F., Petitioner–Appellant, v. FABRICIO M., Respondent–Respondent.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, Harrison (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for appellant. Larry S. Bachner, New York, for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, Harrison (Salihah R. Denman of counsel), for appellant.
Larry S. Bachner, New York, for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2017, which, denied petitioner mother's request to relocate to Florida with the subject children, and dismissed her petition with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court's determination that relocation to Florida would not be in the children's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 736, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ). The parties stipulated to the mother having primary physical custody of the children, and the father having visits every other weekend, and week-long visits during the winter and summer breaks. The record shows that the father exercised every single weekend visit for over three years. It also shows that he exercised the week-long visits when the children were available. He testified that he and the children have a strong, loving relationship.
Petitioner mother seeks to relocate to Florida because her mother lives there and could provide some child care assistance. She testified that she has a part-time job in New York as a substitute daycare teacher. While the mother testified that she wanted to get a better paying job in Florida, enroll in college classes, and place the children in a charter school, she was unable to provide details regarding the steps she has taken or planned to take to accomplish those goals (see Matter of Salena S. v. Ahmad G., 152 A.D.3d 162, 163–164, 58 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
Respondent father provided sound reasons for opposing the relocation, as it would limit the amount and quality of his contact with his children, even with liberal vacation visitation. The record shows that the mother had prevented the children from communicating with the father via phone calls, texts, or video calls in between visits. As such, any quality-of-life advantage realized by the relocation would not necessarily outweigh the disruption in the children's relationship with their father (see Matter of Yamilly M.S. v. Ricardo A.S., 137 A.D.3d 459, 459, 26 N.Y.S.3d 278 [1st Dept. 2016] ). While the attorney for the children asserts that the children wish to relocate, the preference of the children is not determinative, but rather a factor to be considered (id. ; Matter of Chery v. Richardson, 88 A.D.3d 788, 789, 930 N.Y.S.2d 663 [2d Dept. 2011] ).