{5:30 minutes to read} In our previous article, we began to discuss custody evaluations and relocation. In this issue, we continue to explore this topic.

In New York State the landmark case on relocation has been Tropea v. Tropea (1996). In this case, handled by the New York State Court of Appeals, the court ruled that each relocation request should be handled on its own merits with an emphasis on what is likely to be the child’s best interest. The factors that the court considered critical in relocation cases in New York are as follows:

1. The custodial parent’s reason for seeking the relocation.
2. The non-custodial parent’s reason for opposing the relocation.
3. The quality of the relationship between the parents.
4. The degree to which the custodial parent and the child’s life are enhanced by the move.
5. The impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the left-behind parent.
6. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the left-behind parent and the child.

The factors listed in Tropea v. Tropea (1996) as critical in considering a relocation request have been also addressed in the professional literature. A review of such literature suggests that, in considering a relocation request, the following factors should be considered:

• The motivation behind the relocation: Is there a valid reason for the move (e.g., a life-enhancing opportunity) or is the relocation an attempt by the custodial parent to hinder the relationship between the child and the left-behind parent?

• The quality of the relationship between each parent and the child in question

• The nature of the relationship with the noncustodial parent: Does the noncustodial parent have a consistent and close bond with the child in question?

• The age and maturity of the child. Young children (below the age of 2) need frequent and regular contact with both parents, predictable schedule/routines and minimal transitions (see Kelly & Lamb 2003).

• The child’s attachment to the extended community, what is referred to as social capital (Austin 2008). That is, has the child formed strong attachments to members of his or her extended community?

William Austin (2008), in his review of the research in this area, concludes that each relocation needs to be analyzed on its own merits with respect to risk and protective factors. His model—the Relocation Risk Assessment (RRA)—provides evaluators with a research-based forensic method to assist with the organization of data for complex relocation cases. The risk/buffering factors associated with relocation are delineated below.

1. The geographical distance — In general, long-distance moves are more likely to be disruptive than short-distance moves. Therefore long-distance geographical moves by the relocating parent should be considered a risk factor in relocation cases, whereas shorter geographical moves present a lower risk. 

2. The psychological adjustment of the relocating parent — Better psychological resources/coping skills of the relocating parent decrease the risk associated with relocation, and conversely, more limited coping skills and psychological resources in the relocating parent increase the risks associated with relocation.

3. The child’s age — There is a curvilinear relationship with respect to age and risk relocation. The risk associated with relocation is higher with young children (below the age of 4) because a critical developmental task for young children is forming strong attachments to their primary parental figures. In teens, the risk associated with relocations is also high because adolescents are likely to have established strong connections in their community that they would have to leave behind.

4. The degree of involvement of the non-residential parent in the child’s life — The greater the involvement, the more potentially problematic the relocation because the child stands to ”lose a real connection” to a primary attachment figure.

5. The ability of the relocating parent to facilitate or conversely obstruct the non-relocating parent’s access to the child.

6. The degree of parental conflict and the level of communication between the parents.

7. The child’s temperament.

8. The recentness of the parental separation.

I look forward to your comment or questions. Please contact me at nycforensics@gmail.com.

Dr. Alberto Yohananoff
NYC Forensics
dryohananoff@nycforensics.com
P: (646) 284-5600
F: (212) 706-9136

Posted in Forensic Evaluations