Jose v. Guilford

188 A.D.3d 1209

136 N.Y.S.3d 401

In the Matter of Yelika JOSE, respondent,

v.Jacob GUILFORD, appellant.

2019–09454

Docket No. V–6081–17/18A

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 27, 2020

November 25, 2020

Helene Chowes, New York, NY, for appellant.

Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, NY, for respondent.

Christine Theodore, Spring Valley, NY, attorney for the child.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Janet L. McFarland, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 15, 2019. The order, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modify a prior order dated April 24, 2018, so as to permit her to relocate with the subject child to Ohio.

ORDERED that the order dated July 15, 2019, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother and the father are the parents of one child, born in 2016. On April 24, 2018, the Family Court issued an order, inter alia, awarding the mother physical custody of the subject child, with parental access to the father. On or about September 26, 2018, the mother filed a petition seeking to modify the order dated April 24, 2018, so as to permit her to relocate with the subject child to Ohio. After conducting a hearing at which both parties testified, the Family Court granted the mother's petition. The father appeals.

"A parent seeking to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation would be in the child's best interest" ( Matter of Gustave v. Harris, 176 A.D.3d 937, 938, 112 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ). In determining whether the proposed relocation is in the child's best interests, courts may "consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination" ( Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ; see Matter of Gustave v. Harris, 176 A.D.3d at 938, 112 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). These factors include, but are not limited to, each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation, the quality of the relationship between the child and the custodial parent and noncustodial parent, the impact of the relocation on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and child may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the relocation, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child through alternative parental access arrangements (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ; Matter of Gustave v. Harris, 176 A.D.3d at 938, 112 N.Y.S.3d 147 ). In reviewing the Family Court's determination, this Court "accord[s] considerable deference to the court's assessment of the witnesses' demeanor and credibility" ( Matter of Gustave v. Harris, 176 A.D.3d at 938, 112 N.Y.S.3d 147 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, contrary to the contentions of the father and the attorney for the child, the Family Court's determination that relocation was in the best interests of the subject child was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The mother's testimony, which the court credited, demonstrated that relocation to Ohio in order to live together with her new husband, stationed there as a member of the military, and the subject child's new half-sibling would enhance the subject child's life economically and emotionally, and that the subject child's relationship with the father could be preserved through a liberal parental access schedule, including, but not limited to, unlimited access to the subject child in Ohio, frequent telephone and video contact, and extended summer and holiday visits (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 ; Matter of Gustave v. Harris, 176 A.D.3d at 938, 112 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; Matter of Alicea v. Fernandez, 172 A.D.3d 1365, 1366, 102 N.Y.S.3d 639 ; Matter of Ali v. Abrams, 158 A.D.3d 674, 675, 68 N.Y.S.3d 759 ; Matter of Ventura v....