The mother of three boys had sole legal and primary physical custody of her sons, whereas the father had unspecified period of supervised visitation. The father had also been ordered to obtain substance abuse evaluation, attend anger management and domestic violence programs and stay away from the mother until 2014. Although the mother was attempting to relocate with her children to Arizona because that’s where her fiancé was living, the court granted the relocation because she proved that the move was in the best interests of the child. It would bring her increased economic security, and marrying her fiancé would allow her children to be financially secure with coverage of health insurance. The mother was also able to continue to work from home and work with her children until they were in school full-time, and she expressed willingness to have their father visit them in Arizona and regularly speak to them on the phone and online.

TSUI V. TSUI, OCT. 10, 2012:

Supreme Court determined that plaintiff’s proposed relocation to Texas with her children was in their best interest because she showed that she could not meet her family’s living expenses in NY. The defendant did not make regular child support payments and her family would be able to her offer her financial assistance and help with child care if she relocated.


GRANT V. GRANT, DEC. 28, 2012:

Parents had joint custody with plaintiff mother having primary physical custody and defendant father having visitation. Although the parties had consented to the children not being removed from their county in New York without the father’s consent, the mother now aims to move with their three children to Ohio. Relocation was not permitted because she failed to provide sufficient evidence that relocating would be in their children’s best interest.

RAFFA V. RAFFA, JUN. 13, 2012:

Mother wanted to move with the parties’ child to Virginia, where her current husband was offered a job. The parties have joint legal custody and the father, who has visitation on alternate weekends, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, and split holidays and vacations, has never messed a weekend visit since the parties’ got divorced in 2006. He has only missed weekday visitation twice, once when child was sick and the other when his flight returning home was delayed. He also attends parent-teacher meetings and is involved in the child’s activities. The child was also thriving in his or her current location both academically and socially. Relocation was not permitted because the mother was not able to prove that moving to Virginia would be in the child’s best interest.
When hiring a family law attorney to advocate for your interests in a relocation case, it is important to hire someone who can help prepare an argument that highlights why your interests, whether it be relocating or not, are in the best interest of your child. At Brian D. Perskin & Associates P.C., we have extensive experience handling relocation cases and are well-equipped to help safeguard the interests of you and your family in your relocation matter. If you have any questions regarding relocation and would like to speak to a New York family law attorney, contact a lawyer from Brian D. Perskin & Associates P.C. today.

Top New York Family Law Attorneys

Schedule a Consultation Today

Scroll to Top