USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Eleanor B. Alter, Adam John Wolff, Jenifer J. Foley and MaryJane Gurriell, Alter Wolff Foley & Stutman LLP
Alter Wolff Foley & Stutman LLP 810 Seventh Avenue Suite 3600 New York New York 10019 USA
Tel: +1 212 218 5375 Fax: +1 212 218 5399 Email: info@awfs.nyc Web: www.awfs.nyc
Relocation and Custody Issues for High Net Worth Families in New York Recent developments in New York relocation law New York courts continue to apply the flexible frame - work established in Matter of Tropea v Tropea , eval- uating relocation requests through a fact-specific best-interests analysis rather than a presumption for or against relocation. Although the governing legal principles have remained relatively stable, recent decisions illustrate how those principles are being applied to increasingly international and geographi - cally mobile families. In Mathiew v Michels , 180 A.D.3d 403 (1st Dep’t 2020), the Appellate Division affirmed an order permitting a mother to relocate with the children to London. The mother had secured employment there, maintained a residence in London, and the children had an exist - ing history of spending significant time in the city with maternal family members. The decision reflects a will - ingness by New York courts to approve international relocations where the proposed move is consistent with the family’s established lifestyle and the children already possess meaningful connections to the des - tination. Similarly, in Lecaros v Lecaros , 127 A.D.3d 1037 (2d Dep’t 2015), the court approved relocation to London after finding economic necessity and determining that the children’s educational and emotional well-being would be enhanced. The court was further persuaded by evidence that the children’s relationship with the father could be preserved through an appropriate par - enting schedule.
These decisions highlight an issue that frequently arises in high net worth cases. The central ques - tion is often not whether a parent can relocate, but whether the child will genuinely benefit from doing so. Financial resources may alleviate logistical obstacles, but they do not replace the best-interests analysis. Courts remain focused on the quality of the child’s relationship with both parents and the practical effect of the proposed move on that relationship, and on the child’s existing education, engagement, and support structure. For affluent families, relocation may involve existing homes in multiple jurisdictions rather than a newly acquired residence. The relocation dispute there - fore often centres on whether one of several estab - lished family residences will become the child’s pri - mary home following separation. This distinction has become increasingly significant as remote work, glob - al mobility, and international family structures become more common. Multiple residences and the meaning of relocation One of the most significant issues affecting wealthy families arises before a court ever reaches the tradi - tional relocation factors: determining whether a relo - cation has occurred at all. Many affluent families maintain multiple residences, for example, in New York, Florida, Colorado, Califor - nia, the United Kingdom, or other locations. During the marriage, children may move regularly among those residences without any legal significance because both parents remain actively involved. Following sep -
202 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook