New York Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Clement Law Firm : Family Law Serving Manhattan, Westchester County, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, New York City

I have returned from my vacation, schools back in session and summer is, for all accounts over. So, I am back to bloggging on a regular basis.

One of the most common post-divorce scenarios is that the custodial parent wishes to relocate and the move will negatively impact on the other parent’s relationship with the child. The Nassau County Family Court in the case Mr. G. v. Mrs. M (New York Law Journal, 8/28/07 (subscription required) provided a excellent primer on the subject and in doing so, denied a mother’s application to move with her child to Virginia.

As laid out in the leading case of Tropea v. Tropea, the issue is to be determined as is in the best interest in the child. In doing so, the Court is to consider the following criteria:

1. Each parent’s reason for either seeking or opposing the relocation;

2. the current state of the relationship between each parent and the child;

3. the impact that the relocation will have on the quality and of the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent;

4. the emotional, economic and educational effects that the move will have on the child; and

5. the feasibility of maintaining the relationship between the child and non-custodial parent.

The trial court must weigh all of the factors and determine not what would be best for the parents but, rather, what is in the best interests of the child.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Postings in two divorce and family law blogs highlight a growing conflict between the states on how to deal with a parties continuing obligation to pay alimony or maintenance, as it called in New York, if the former spouse enters into a domestic partnership.

To frame the issue, what happens if you are obligated to pay maintenance to your ex, but your ex rather than  re-marrying, enters into a domestic partnership? A number of states have enacted civil union or domestic partnership statutes which grant same sex couples some, but not all, of the rights and privileges of marriage. Maintenance or alimony typically terminates when the receiving spouse remarries.

The New Jersey Law Blog provides an excellent survey of the issue, contrasting a case from Virginia, which held as a result of the domestic partnership alimony should terminate, and one from Oregon, which held that the support obligation should continue.

The Florida Divorce Blog reports on a California decision in which the court ruled that a domestic partnership “is mere cohabitation and not a marriage.” Therefore, the alimony payments were ordered to continue.

To avoid uncertainty and litigation, this issue must be addressed in a settlement agreement at the time of divorce. If it is the parties’ intention that maintenance should terminate in the event of a cohabitation (same sex or opposite sex), the entry into marriage or a domestic partnership or civil union, the settlement agreement should make special provision. The failure to address t his issue exposes the parties to an unknown and presently unpredictable future determination.

• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks