At Gilmer Law Firm, PLLC in Brooklyn, we know that relocation cases can be among the most emotionally charged custody battles. When a parent seeks to move—whether across New York, across the country, or even overseas—it raises difficult questions about stability, visitation rights, and the best interests of the child.
New York courts have long struggled to balance the rights of custodial and noncustodial parents. The landmark cases of Daghir v. Daghir (1982) and Tropea v. Tropea (1996) illustrate how courts have approached these issues. Together, they show how the law evolved from giving visitation rights disproportionate weight to adopting a more nuanced, child-centered standard.
For families navigating these challenges, consulting with a knowledgeable Brooklyn visitation attorney can help clarify options and strategies.
The Relocation Dispute in
Daghir v. Daghir
In Daghir v. Daghir, 56 N.Y.2d 938 (1982), the mother had custody of three children after a divorce. She remarried, and her new husband accepted a two-year job assignment in France. She sought to relocate abroad with the children.
The Family Court allowed the move, enlarging the father’s visitation to 30 summer days, providing at least one week in France, and reducing his support payments to cover travel costs .
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling:
The Court of Appeals affirmed, transferring custody to the father during the mother’s time abroad—even though the father had not proven his fitness to assume permanent custody .
This decision highlighted how strongly courts once valued frequent visitation, sometimes at the expense of stability.
For more background on relocation standards, see our guide on how to win a relocation case in New York.
Judge Meyer’s Dissent: Protecting Children from Instability
Judge Meyer’s dissent in Daghir remains a touchstone in relocation law. He rejected the idea that custody could be changed merely to protect visitation:
He further emphasized that “stability is a factor of overweening importance in the development of a child” (Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, cited in dissent) .
This reasoning underscores a vital point: visitation is important, but it is not absolute. Custody should not be uprooted unless a parent proves fitness and the change serves the child’s best interests.
The New York City Bar Association provides additional resources explaining how relocation factors are weighed in custody disputes.
The Turning Point:
Tropea v. Tropea
More than a decade later, the Court of Appeals revisited relocation in Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996). Two custodial mothers sought permission to relocate—one within New York, the other to Massachusetts.
The Court rejected rigid formulas that had developed after Daghir, such as requiring “exceptional circumstances” before permitting a move. Instead, Judge Titone explained:
This ruling signaled a shift: rather than automatically privileging visitation, courts must engage in a holistic analysis that considers all relevant factors.
For families facing these issues, Divorcenet offers a helpful breakdown of how relocation law applies in practice.
Four Educational Principles for Parents
Drawing from Daghir, the dissents, and Tropea, four guiding principles emerge:
- Stability is paramount. Courts should not disturb a child’s primary home absent clear evidence that a move or custody change serves the child’s well-being.
- Visitation versus stability. The Court of Appeals in Daghir prioritized visitation over stability, but the dissents remind us that visitation alone cannot justify uprooting children. Judge Meyer’s dissent remains a reminder that custody should not shift “for the purpose of giving effect to the father’s right of visitation” .
- Parental fitness must be proven. A noncustodial parent opposing relocation must demonstrate their capacity to provide consistent and adequate care.
- Best interests of the child control. Relocation cases hinge on whether the proposed move enhances the child’s life emotionally, educationally, or economically.
Parents often ask: Can a parent relocate without court permission in Brooklyn? The short answer: not without serious risk. Even without a custody order, unilateral relocation can trigger court intervention and potentially a change in custody.
Practical Lessons for Families
- Do not move without court approval. Relocating without consent can result in sanctions or even loss of custody.
- Prepare a good faith case. Courts will look at motives—whether relocation is for legitimate reasons like employment or family support.
- Offer meaningful visitation solutions. Creative visitation schedules, such as extended summers or virtual contact, can help preserve parent-child bonds.
- Focus on the child. Courts are less concerned with parental grievances and more with stability, education, and overall welfare.
The Woman’s Divorce guide also provides parents with a practical overview of relocation challenges.
FAQs About Custody and Relocation in New York
Q: Can custody be changed just to protect visitation?
A: No. As Judge Meyer cautioned, custody cannot be altered merely “for the purpose of giving effect to the father’s right of visitation.”
Q: What does the court consider in relocation cases?
A: Courts weigh stability, best interests, parental motives, and the feasibility of preserving the noncustodial parent’s role. A Brooklyn visitation attorney can help you frame your case within these factors.
Q: Is relocation without consent ever safe?
A: Rarely. Even absent an order, a move may prompt the other parent to file for custody or habeas corpus relief, which can backfire on the relocating parent.
Q: When should I contact a lawyer?
A: As soon as relocation becomes an issue. A skilled Brooklyn visitation attorney can advise on risks, help you prepare evidence, and represent you in Family Court or on appeal.
Final Word
The Daghir and Tropea decisions illustrate how New York courts have wrestled with the tension between visitation and stability.
- In Daghir, visitation rights overshadowed stability, leading to custody being transferred to the noncustodial father.
- In Tropea, the Court of Appeals corrected course, making clear that no rigid formula applies—each case must be decided on its own facts, with the child’s best interests at the center.
For parents navigating relocation disputes, the lesson is clear: always keep the focus on the child’s stability and long-term welfare.
If you are facing a relocation or custody appeal in New York, consulting with an experienced Brooklyn visitation attorney can make the difference in protecting both your rights and your child’s future.
Take the Next Step
If you are facing a relocation or custody appeal in New York, you don’t have to face it alone. At Gilmer Law Firm, PLLC, we provide experienced guidance in relocation disputes, custody modifications, and Family Court appeals.
Call us today at (718) 864-2011 or visit our Contact Page to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced Brooklyn visitation attorney.
