Please read the seminal case of Dupre v. Dupre which explains the law in RI for relocation of children out of state in Rhode Island (RI). The general standard for relocation in RI is the “best interest of the child.” The Family Court in RI must look at the factors set forth in Dupre as well as looking at the custody factors set forth in Pettinato v. Pettinato.
Child Relocation law
Please consult with a Rhode Island divorce lawyer or a child custody attorney in RI to determine your chances to be able to relocate out of state. Many custodial parents are asking the following questions concerning relocation of children:
- Can I move my kids out of state without fathers permission?
- Can a custodial parent move out of state?
- Can a mother move away from a father?
- Can I move out of state if I have sole custody?
- Can a mother take a child without father’ permission?
The Factors set forth by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Dupre v Dupre are set forth below:
Below you will find the factors that RI Family Court Judges utilize to determine whether a custodial parent can move out of state with the minor children against the wishes of the non- custodial parent. These are quotes from the Rhode Island Supreme Court case, Dupre v Dupre. These significant quotes are presented by Rhode Island relocation attorney, David Slepkow.
“The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.”
- “Any relocation analysis should begin with an assessment of the relationship between each parent and the child. Although certainly a relevant consideration, a parent’s legal status as custodial parent is not necessarily controlling. A parent, who previously has been awarded sole custody, has been entrusted with the authority to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education, and welfare. In actual practice, however, that parent may not be the child’s primary caretaker. So, too, in the case of joint custody, it does not necessarily follow that both parents are, in fact, sharing the custodial responsibilities on a relatively equal basis. The A.L.I. Principles speak in terms of “a parent who has been exercising the clear majority of custodial responsibility.” A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17(4)(a). We reject any mechanical or formulaic approach to determining which parent may be acting as a primary caretaker or what may constitute a clear majority of custodial responsibility, but leave that to the sound discretion of the trial justice. It entails more than a simple measurement of the time that the child spends with each parent, and requires an examination of the quality of the relationship that the child enjoys with each parent. The A.L.I. Principles emphasize the maintenance of continuity in caretaking for the child, and that “when the child has had one clearly primary caretaker, the best interests of the child are more closely tied to the interests and quality of life of that caretaker than to the other parent.” A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17, cmt. a. at 357. If one parent, in fact, exercises a significant majority of the parental duties and responsibilities, the child’s best interests undoubtedly will be closely intertwined with the well-being of that parent. “The paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements — and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker — weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.” In re Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d at 478-79. On the other hand, the attachment between the child and the non-relocating parent also will be an important consideration. Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 149. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Robert E. DUPRE v. Melanie S. DUPRE.
The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.
- Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 481 N.E.2d 1153, 1158 (Mass. 1985) (“An evaluation of the best interests of the child requires attention to whether the quality of the child’s life may be improved by the change * * * and the extent to which moving or not moving will affect the emotional, physical, or developmental needs of the child.”); see also Baures, 770 A.2d at 229 (Court should consider whether the child “will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available” in present location.); Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(6). Id.
The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development. Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.
- Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(2).
The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
- See Ireland, 717 A.2d at 685; Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 151; Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(3). Certainly, the history and past actions of the relocating parent either to foster the relationship between the child and the other parent, or to frustrate the relationship, would be an important consideration. So, too, would be the failure of the non-relocating parent to avail himself or herself of available opportunities for visitation. Id.
The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations
- See, e.g., Hollandsworth, 109 S.W.3d at 664 (the effect of the move on the extended family relationship in the location in which the children and parent will relocate, as well as in the location they presently reside); Baures, 770 A.2d at 230 (considers the effect of the move on extended family relationships in both locations). Id.
Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation
- “A parent’s desire to relocate with his or her children ought not be predicated upon a whim. On the other hand, as we previously have noted, a relocating parent need not establish a compelling reason for the move. The motivation for the relocation, however, will be a significant consideration. Clearly, a vindictive desire to interfere in the other parent’s relationship with the child would weigh heavily against the parent seeking to relocate. A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17(4)(a). The A.L.I. Principles identify the following non-exclusive list of purposes for a relocation as valid:
- “(1) to be close to significant family or other sources of support, (2) to address significant health problems, (3) to protect the safety of the child or another member of the child’s household from a significant risk of harm, (4) to pursue a significant employment or educational opportunity, (5) to be with one’s spouse or domestic partner who lives in, or is pursuing a significant employment or [*259] educational opportunity in, the new location, (6) to significantly improve the family’s quality of life. The relocating parent should have the burden of proving the validity of any other purpose.” Section 2.17(4)(a)(ii). The A.L.I. Principles further provide that a move for a valid purpose is reasonable unless “its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving, or by moving to a location that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent’s relationship to the child.” Section 2.17(4)(a)(iii). Id.
- The motives of the parent opposing the move also should be considered. A parent may be objecting to the child’s relocation to secure a financial advantage or to exercise a measure of control over an ex-spouse, rather than out of a sincere desire to foster a relationship with the child.” Id.
“In cases of international relocation, the question of whether the country to which the child is to be relocated is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be an important consideration.”
- This only applies to international relocation cases which are infrequent in Providence Family Court.
“To the extent that they may be relevant to a relocation inquiry, the Pettinato factors*** also will be significant.”
- We reemphasize that our recitation of factors to be considered is not intended to be exhaustive. Nor is any one factor dispositive. Each case will present its own unique circumstances that a trial justice must balance and weigh as he or she deems appropriate.” Id.
Below you will find the Pettinato Factors used in RI child custody cases:
- The wishes of the child’s parent or parents regarding the child’s custody.
- The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
- The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parent or parents, the child’s siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest.
- The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community.
- The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. “
- The stability of the child’s home environment.
- The moral fitness of the child’s parents.
- The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.” No. 89-56-A. 582 A.2d 909 (1990) Gregory J. PETTINATO v. Susanne L. PETTINATO. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. November 30, 1990.
If you are seeking or opposing an out of state relocation, contact Rhode Island relocation attorney David Slepkow. A RI relocation lawyer will fight to protect your rights.