## Facts

- Beth A. DePrete (mother) and Michael J. DePrete (father) divorced in May 2008.
- The divorce judgment awarded joint legal custody, primary physical placement to the mother, and generous parenting time to the father.
- In October 2009, the mother moved in Family Court for permission to relocate the parties’ two minor children from Rhode Island to San Antonio, Texas, and to modify the divorce judgment accordingly.
- The proposed relocation was based on the mother’s engagement to an active-duty Air Force officer stationed in Texas and her claim that the move would improve the family’s quality of life.
- After an evidentiary hearing (including testimony from both parents and the fiancé), the trial justice denied relocation and denied modification.
- The trial justice found both parents had deep, loving relationships with the children, found the father more credible, and found the mother was unlikely to support the children’s relationship with the father if relocation were allowed.
- The mother appealed, arguing misapplication of the relocation standard and error in the best-interests determination.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Court misapplied Rhode Island’s relocation factors or abused its discretion in denying the custodial parent’s request to relocate the children out of state.
2. Whether the Family Court erred in concluding that relocation was not in the children’s best interests despite asserted improvements to the custodial parent’s quality of life.
3. Whether the Family Court erred in finding that proposed long-distance visitation could not adequately preserve the children’s relationship with the non-relocating parent.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s order denying relocation and denying modification of the divorce judgment.
- The Court held that the trial justice properly applied the best-interests standard and relevant relocation factors.
- The Court held that the trial justice did not abuse discretion in giving substantial weight to preserving the children’s strong relationship with their father.
- The Court upheld the trial justice’s credibility findings and factual determinations, finding no clear error or overlooked material evidence.
- The Court agreed that no reasonable visitation plan could maintain the existing depth and quality of the father-child relationship given the distance involved.

## Legal Principles

- In relocation disputes, the controlling standard is the best interests of the child, not the preferences or interests of either parent.
- Courts consider multiple factors, including: the nature and quality of the child’s relationship with each parent; the reasons for the move; the feasibility of preserving the non-relocating parent’s relationship through visitation; and likely effects on the child’s development.
- An improvement in the custodial parent’s quality of life may benefit the child, but it is only one factor and is not dispositive.
- A court may deny relocation where the move would substantially diminish a strong, frequent parent-child relationship and where extended or holiday visitation cannot replace regular contact.
- On appeal, Family Court factual findings and credibility determinations receive great weight and are reversed only for clear error or abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of a mother’s request to relocate children from Rhode Island to Texas because the trial justice reasonably found that the move would materially impair the children’s close relationship with their father and that the asserted benefits to the mother’s circumstances did not outweigh the children’s best interests in maintaining frequent, meaningful contact with him.


DePrete v. DePrete, 44 A.3d 1260 (R.I. 2012)