Relocation disputes rank among the more difficult, contentious and emotional disputes in the area of family law. This is, at least partially, a result of how difficult it is to reach a compromise in such situations. A requested relocation may interfere with the relationship between the subject child(ren) and the noncustodial parent. In evaluating such requests, New York law mandates that the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174). "Relocation may be permitted if the custodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is in the child's best interests" (Matter of Schreurs v Johnson, 27 AD3d 654, 655; see Noble v Noble, 52 AD3d 490, 491). Obviously, the application of this standard will necessitate an evaluation of the underlying facts of each case.

            When evaluating whether a proposed relocation will serve a child's best interests, the factors to be considered "include, but are certainly not limited to each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741; see Matter of Schreurs v Johnson, 27 AD3d at 655). Despite the multitude of factors that may properly be considered in the context of a relocation petition, "the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern" (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739). "Indeed, even where the move would leave the noncustodial parent with what may be considered meaningful access,' there is still a need to weigh the effect of the quantitative and qualitative losses that naturally will result against such other relevant factors as the custodial parent's reasons for wanting to relocate and the benefits that the child may enjoy or the harm that may ensue if the move is or is not permitted" (id. at 739).

            Most recently, the Appellate Division for the Second Department rejected a mother's request to relocate from New York to South Carolina, concluding that the mother's proffered reason for the relocation (reduced housing costs) was outweighed by the impairment that relocation would cause to the relationship between the subject child and the noncustodial father. Martino v. Ramos, 2009 NY. Slip Op 05865 (2nd Dept., July 14, 2009). In the Martino decision, the Court focused on the father's active visitation with the subject child. Some insights that can be derived from that case include: (a) a custodial parent is more likely to succeed in an application for approval to relocate where the request is based on more than financial reasons; and (b) a noncustodial parent opposing a request to relocate is more likely to succeed if he or she has established a strong relationship with the subject children.