## Facts

- Two child-relocation appeals were consolidated: *Tropea v. Tropea* and *Browner v. Kenward*.
- In *Tropea*, divorced parents had two children; the mother had sole custody under an agreement granting the father frequent visitation and requiring judicial approval to relocate outside the county.
- The mother sought permission to move about 130 miles to marry and live with her fiancé, who had an established business there; the father opposed and sought custody, citing reduced access.
- A hearing officer denied relocation under a restrictive rule requiring “exceptional circumstances” or economic necessity when the move would substantially impair visitation.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed and allowed relocation with a revised visitation schedule; the father appealed.
- In *Browner*, the mother had physical custody and the father had liberal visitation, including midweek overnights; the mother sought to relocate after remarriage, which would end midweek visits but allow other substantial contact.
- Family Court permitted relocation and the intermediate appellate court affirmed; the father appealed.

## Issues

1. What legal standard governs a custodial parent’s request to relocate with a child when the move will significantly reduce the noncustodial parent’s visitation.
2. Under the proper standard, whether relocation should be permitted in the consolidated cases despite the loss of midweek visitation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders permitting relocation in both cases.
- The court rejected rigid relocation preconditions (e.g., “exceptional circumstances,” “economic necessity,” or a “meaningful access” threshold) as inconsistent with the central inquiry.
- The court held that relocation disputes must be decided case-by-case under a comprehensive “best interests of the child” analysis, considering all relevant circumstances without presumptions for or against relocation.
- Applying that standard, the court concluded that the moves could be permitted because they were supported by good-faith reasons and meaningful parent-child relationships could be maintained through modified visitation.

## Legal Principles

- A custodial parent’s relocation request is governed by a totality-of-the-circumstances “best interests of the child” test, not a threshold requirement of “exceptional circumstances” or economic necessity.
- No single factor is dispositive; courts must consider all relevant facts and circumstances with predominant emphasis on the child’s welfare.
- Relevant, non-exclusive considerations include:
  - each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move;
  - the quality of the child’s relationship with each parent;
  - the likely impact on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent;
  - the extent to which relocation may improve the lives of the custodial parent and child (economically, emotionally, educationally);
  - the feasibility of preserving the noncustodial parent-child relationship through suitable visitation arrangements.
- The custodial parent bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation serves the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The court replaced New York’s restrictive relocation framework with a flexible best-interests analysis, holding that even substantial visitation changes may be allowed when the custodial parent shows the move benefits the child and workable visitation can preserve a meaningful relationship with the noncustodial parent.


Tropea v. Tropea, 665 N.E.2d 145 (N.Y. 1996)