News

Split Court Approves Relocation of Child of Divorce to California, Suggests Father Should Relocate As Well

Alaire K.G. v. Anthony P.G. | May 31, 2011, Appellate Division, First Department

The mother was granted legal and physical custody of the child in the Stipulation of Settlement. The Stipulation allowed the Mother’s relocation within 25 miles of the father’s house in the Bronx. The father had a history of irregular employment and was currently not employed.

The parties were divorced in 2006. In 2008, the mother met her future husband, Mr. Bonnar, who was retired from the Air Force. Mr. Bonnar eventually found employment in California. The mother approached the father regarding a move to California, to live with Mr. Bonnar. The father did not consent to the mother’s relocation, and the mother refused to sign over custody of the child to the father.

The mother relocated to California in 2008. Thereafter, the mother gave birth to Mr. Bonnar’s son in 2009, and they were married in 2009.

The child remained with the father when the mother relocated.

In 2008, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, alleging that the mother had abandoned the child in July 2008. In December 2008, the mother filed a petition for relocation. A hearing took place and the parties were the only witnesses. It took the court almost a year to issue a decision, and in July 2010, the court granted the mother’s petition for relocation. During the time that the parties were waiting for the court’s decision, the child continued to live with the father. After the court’s decision, the child moved to California in compliance with the court’s order. The matter was then appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision permitting the mother to retain custody of the child, citing the child’s best interest, and in particular stating that there is no question that the California home was financially more stable than the father’s and that the stepfather had a steady job that provides the family with health insurance. By contrast, the father was not working, the job he was offered was postponed, he is on some type of public assistance and he received money from his parents.

The court also stated that inasmuch as given the father’s bleak financial circumstances, with no career or family in New York, there is nothing preventing him from moving to be closer with his son in California.
See Decision »