| Matter of Shaw v Miller |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00525 [91 AD3d 879] |
| Jnury 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Shaw, Respondent, v Jaye Miller,Appellant. |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine, Janet Neustaetter, and Thomas W.MacLeod of counsel), attorney for the child.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O'Shea, J.), dated January 19, 2011,which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of custody andvisitation of the same court dated March 26, 2007, so as to allow him to relocate to Virginia withthe subject child, with certain visitation to the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court did not err in granting the father's petition to modify a prior order ofcustody and visitation. The father established by a preponderance of the evidence that therelocation to Virginia was in the subject child's best interests (see Matter of Tropea vTropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of Harding v Harding, 84 AD3d 1086 [2011]; Matter of Englese v Strauss, 83 AD3d705 [2011]; Bjornson vBjornson, 38 AD3d 816 [2007]). The father established that the relocation to Virginiawas economically necessary, that the child's life will be enhanced emotionally and educationallyby the move, that the move will not have a negative impact on the quality of the child's futurecontact with the mother, and that it was feasible to preserve the relationship between the motherand child through suitable visitation arrangements (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87NY2d at 740-741; Matter of Hamed vHamed, 88 AD3d 791 [2011]; Matter of Jennings v Yillah-Chow, 84 AD3d 1376 [2011]; Matter of Englese v Strauss, 83 AD3d705 [2011]). The Family Court's determination to allow the father to relocate to Virginiawith the child was in accordance with both the child's stated preference and the position of theattorney for the child (see Matter ofFegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d 1091 [2007]).
Although the new visitation schedule imposed by the order appealed from will have animpact upon the mother's ability to spend time with the child on weekends, this liberal visitationschedule, which includes extended visits during the child's summer and school vacations, willallow for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the mother and child (see Matter of Jennings v Yillah-Chow,84 AD3d 1376 [2011]; Matter ofClarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976 [2011]). The Court of Appeals determined inMatter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727 [1996]), that there are many cases where lessfrequent, but more extended visits over summers and school vacations would be equallyconducive, or perhaps even more conducive, to the maintenance of a close parent-childrelationship, [*2]since such extended visits give the parties theopportunity to interact in a normalized domestic setting (id. at 738; see Matter of Parish A. v Jamie T., 49AD3d 1322 [2008]; Szemansco v Szemansco, 296 AD2d 686 [2002]). Here, giventhe evidence that much of the visitation time under the prior order of custody and visitation wastaken up by travel, and that the stress of frequent travel adversely affected the quality of thechild's visits with the mother, this is a case where less frequent, but extended visits as imposed bythe order appealed from would be conducive to the maintenance of the relationship between themother and child. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.