{3:42 minutes to read}
Imagine that you’ve been living separately under your agreement for a few years and are co-parenting with your former spouse. Things are going better than you ever imagined, your children are happy, and then your former spouse informs you that she will be losing her job unless she accepts a transfer to Florida. Because that job results in a significant increase in salary, and because she then will be able to be close to where her parents and sister live, she wants to move to Florida with the children.
Or
Imagine you are the mother in that scenario, and you recognize how well the children have been adjusting. You were getting along with their father, and you know the children need both parents, but then this happened. You feel it will be hard, but you won’t get a job like that here in Westchester, and the children will be able to enjoy a much higher standard of living, private schools, and close ties with extended family.
This is an example of why cases involving a parent relocating, especially a parent with whom the children primarily reside, are so very difficult. Typically, you have two very committed and well meaning parents, well adjusted children and circumstances where no one is at fault.
These are some of the most painful and hotly contested cases. Like other cases involving children, they ostensibly are decided by “the best interests of the children” and a copious number of cases relying upon the standards outlined in a landmark case in New York, “Tropea v. Tropea.” Many different interpretations can be made by attorneys applying the facts to these standards, and the stakes are higher here than in just about any other matter involving the children, because potentially:
1 parent will be compelled to stay in a situation that she doesn’t feel is best for the children; or
1 parent will not have the consistent contact with the children previously enjoyed.
I will always talk about the concept of relocation when working with parents who are separating. Most parents will decide to include language in the agreement that indicates:
They both agree to remain within a certain area;
If one needs to move beyond that area, a process for making that determination.
Admittedly, outlining the process to be taken is the easy part – talking first, then mediation if they don’t reach agreement, and then court if mediation doesn’t work. The hard part is coming to a determination, whether in mediation or in court.
What makes that determination in mediation less destructive to the family is that you have two well meaning, loving parents striving to make the best decision possible for their children, even if they differ on what that is. In court, you will have those same well meaning and loving parents cede their decision making to attorneys or a judge, and I believe that only makes a very difficult process even more difficult.