USA – NEW YORK Law and Practice Contributed by: Eleanor B. Alter, Adam John Wolff, Jenifer J. Foley and MaryJane Gurriell, Alter Wolff Foley & Stutman LLP
The court also gives important consideration to the child’s established routines: educational consistency, known medical providers, and deep involvement with group activities and social groups. 2.3.8 Costs of an Application for Relocation Relocation litigation is highly fact-specific and can vary significantly in complexity from case to case. Because no single factor is determinative, counsel typically must investigate and develop evidence relat - ing to a wide range of issues in order to present the strongest possible case for a client’s position. As a result, the cost of bringing or defending a relocation application can be substantial and is difficult to esti - mate without first understanding the particular facts and circumstances involved. Potential litigants should therefore anticipate that relocation proceedings may be lengthy and expensive, especially where the matter is vigorously contested. That said, under New York law, the court may direct the more financially resourced parent to contribute toward the less monied parent’s legal fees, regard - less of which parent is seeking relocation. This fee- shifting mechanism is intended to ensure that custody and relocation determinations are made based on the children’s best interests, rather than the parties’ rela - tive financial resources. 2.3.9 Time Taken by an Application for Relocation Custody and relocation litigation can be time-con - suming, and the timeline for resolving a relocation application varies considerably depending on the cir - cumstances of the case and the court in which it is pending. In New York, there is often no fixed discovery schedule in custody matters, but relocation disputes are typically initiated through motion practice and supporting affidavits. The court will generally review the parties’ submissions to determine whether the allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing. If a hearing is required, the timing of the court’s cal - endar can significantly affect how quickly the matter is resolved. In some cases, a hearing may be sched - uled relatively promptly; in others, court congestion and the number of hearing days required can result in substantial delays. Where multiple hearing dates
are necessary, proceedings may extend over several months. As a practical matter, parties should be prepared for the possibility that a final determination may not be made quickly. Consequently, interim orders can be particularly important, as they may remain in effect for an extended period while the litigation is pending. 2.3.10 Primary Caregivers Versus Left-Behind Parents Compared to some jurisdictions, anecdotal conven - tional wisdom describes New York courts as generally more inclined to deny a relocation request. However, under Tropea v Tropea , there is no presumption for or against relocation; the court considers all relevant circumstances and determines whether the proposed move is in the child’s best interests. 2.4 Relocation Within a Jurisdiction New York law does not distinguish between moves within New York, within the United States, or interna - tionally. The factual application varies, but the legal standard remains the same. If a parent removes a child internationally without the other parent’s consent and without court authorisa - tion, the removal may constitute a wrongful taking under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention is implemented in the United States by the Interna - tional Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), codified at 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. If a return order is issued under the Convention, New York courts enforce such orders as if they were child custody determinations, pursuant to N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 77-a. 3.2 Steps Taken to Return Abducted Children Where the child is taken to a Hague partner country, the parent left behind has access to a structured, inter - nationally recognised legal mechanism with defined timelines, clear burdens of proof, and a presumption in favour of prompt return. The process begins with a 3. Child Abduction 3.1 Legality
199 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook