In the Matters of M.W., Petitioner, v. C.G., Respondent. (2026)

The underlying petitions were filed by M.W. and C.G., respectively, seeking custody of their four-year old son, C.W.

C.G. moved for an order permitting her to relocate to Texas with C.W. By an Order, dated June 13, 2025, this Court granted the motion to the extent of ordering a hearing. The relocation hearing was conducted on June 13, 2025, September 12, 2025, December 2, 2025 and April 17, 2026.

Pending a final determination, this Court issued interim orders  ¹ permitting C.G., a resident of Brooklyn, to temporarily reside in Texas with C.W. during her recovery from a June 2025 knee surgery. Under the interim framework, C.G. was granted extended parenting time with C.W., while a temporary schedule was established for M.W., providing him with parenting time and daily communication with his son. Crucially, C.G. was directed to maintain a New York residence pending a final ruling on her relocation application.

At the hearing, C.G. testified that she resided in a Brooklyn apartment with her son, C.W., who was born in December 2021. Originally from Dallas, Texas, she moved to New York City in 2017. Prior to the issuance of this Court's interim orders, she was employed remotely as a contract production accountant. C.G. testified that she met M.W. in December 2020. When they began dating, M.W. lived in Stamford, Connecticut, but he eventually moved into her Brooklyn apartment when they learned that she was pregnant in April 2021.

She explained that their relationship started well, but deteriorated due to disagreements over finances and household chores. Although they tried therapy, the dynamic turned volatile. C.G. testified that M.W. became physically abusive in August 2022, assaulting her on four different occasions. The final altercation occurred in the spring 2023, after he had moved in with his parents in Connecticut. When C.G. requested financial assistance for their son's daycare, M.W. reportedly choked her, pushed her into their child's bedroom, and snatched her phone as she tried to call the police.

C.G. testified that she sought to relocate to Texas with their son, C.W., because she could no longer afford New York expenses, such as rent, after M.W. moved out, as he had contributed financially. C.G. explained that she has no family in New York to help her during her post-surgery recovery period, which was expected to last nine to twelve months. To illustrate the lack of co-parenting support, she testified that when she ran a high fever in August 2024, M.W. refused to care for their son because the back seat of his car was full, and he did not have the car seat in his vehicle.

During cross-examination, C.G. testified that while living in New York, she worked remotely as a production accountant with an annual salary of at least $100,000. She acknowledged paying $2,650 per month for a rent-stabilized two-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn and noted having one personal loan. Regarding their history, C.G. confirmed that M.W. had never been arrested for domestic violence and admitted that she did not seek medical treatment following their April 2023 altercation. With respect to child support, she testified that following a violation hearing, M.W. has paid approximately $300 biweekly since May 22, 2025, which includes arrears.

C.G. noted that their son is excited to visit his father and paternal grandparents and reacts joyfully to the iPad ringing when his father calls. However, she alleged that M.W. failed to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule. Referring to a log on her phone, she stated that he missed one visit between May 2024 and September 2024, after which she ceased tracking his attendance. She further asserted that M.W. maintained only 43% of his weekly visits from September 2023-September 2024. The log that she referenced to support this calculation was not introduced into evidence.

When M.W.'s counsel asked if her primary motivation for relocating to Texas was to be closer to family, C.G. responded that the relocation was urgently needed to facilitate her recovery from knee surgery and to secure support for C.W. during that period. She acknowledged, however, that it would be easier for M.W. to remain involved in their son's life from Stamford, Connecticut, than if he had to travel to Dallas, Texas.

On re-direct examination, C.G. testified that monthly rental costs in Texas are $500 to $1,000 cheaper than in New York, though she produced no documentary evidence to substantiate this claim.

On September 12, 2025, the second day of the hearing, C.G. updated the court on her post-surgery recovery before M.W. took the stand. She also shared that she had enrolled C.W. in a pre-school that August with his father's consent. However, C.G. reported that C.W. was disruptive and unable to sit or focus in class. After consulting with the school counselor, teachers and the assistant principal, both parents mutually determined that he should be withdrawn from the school. C.G. added that C.W. still asks about his former Brooklyn teachers.

M.W. then took the stand and testified that he moved into C.G.'s Brooklyn apartment two months into her pregnancy to provide support. At the time, he was working as a personal trainer at two boxing gyms in Connecticut. M.W. testified that he was actively involved in C.W.'s care during their cohabitation, routinely handling feeding, bathing, and bedtime, and other daily childcare responsibilities.

M.W. explained that their relationship ended because they could not get along and he felt unappreciated. In April 2023, he moved from the Brooklyn apartment to his parents' three-bedroom apartment in Stamford, Connecticut, where he still lives. He noted that C.W. spent a significant amount of time with his grandparents. During his testimony, fourteen photographs were admitted into evidence, depicting M.W. with his son at birthday parties, grocery shopping, reading, and visiting Chuck E. Cheese and the Brooklyn Children's Museum, where they held a yearlong membership. M.W. noted that while he currently reads to C.W. during his son's temporary residence in Texas, it is difficult to maintain his son's attention over Facetime.

Regarding the April 2023 altercation, M.W. testified that C.G. was pressuring him for financial contributions and told him that he could no longer stay at the apartment. He stated that he felt immense pressure to provide for his family and yelled that he was doing his best. When C.G. threatened to call the police, M.W. admitted that he snatched her phone and threw it on the couch - an action that he regrets. He denied choking C.G. or engaging in any other physical altercations with her.

M.W. testified that court-ordered visitation began in mid-2023, consisting of every Tuesday and alternating weekends. Commuting from Stamford to Brooklyn, he maintained consistent Tuesday visits and rescheduled any cancellations, noting that his son was always excited to see him. C.W. attended a Brooklyn daycare in September 2023 and was enrolled in school in September 2024, where teachers reported that he was doing great. He expressed that he had reservations when C.G. wanted to enroll C.W. in a much larger school in Texas. C.G. ultimately withdrew C.W. from the Texas school after reports that he was aggressive, disruptive, and refused to listen. M.W. also noted that the school performed tests on C.W. without their permission.

Moreover, he attributed past financial hardships to a February 1, 2025 car accident that left him temporarily unemployed and unable to commute. However, he testified that he currently pays $306 biweekly in child support. Since April 29, 2025, he has worked as a youth boxing specialist at a Queens non-profit community center, and noted that C.W. could attend the sessions during his parenting time.

M.W. testified against the Texas relocation, citing the importance of paternal involvement and the logistical hardships of cross-country travel. He highlighted his lack of ties to Texas, his desire to keep the family unit intact, and the importance of grandparent bonding.

On April 17, 2026, the final hearing date, M.W. testified that C.W. is having difficulties adjusting to his new Texas school, where teachers report that he lacks focus. He disclosed that C.G. revealed that C.W. has autism, leaving him feeling disconnected from his son's daily routine. He maintained that a New York residence would allow him to visit frequently, manage school drop-offs, and monitor developmental changes naturally rather than through staged video calls.

M.W. has visited C.W. three to four times (twice in Texas) since the interim orders, noting that financial constraints and strict workplace leave policies prevented him from visiting his son in December 2025. After paying child support each month, he reported having $1,800 left for his remaining monthly expenses.

M.W.'s second witness was his father, M.W. Sr. M.W. Sr. testified that he resides in a three-bedroom apartment in Stamford, Connecticut, with his wife and his son. Shortly after C.W.'s birth, he and his wife provided childcare and visited weekly or biweekly.

Following the parties' separation, when his son returned to the Stamford residence, M.W. Sr. and his wife continued hosting C.W. in Connecticut and maintained virtual contact. He noted that C.W. has developed friendships with children in their neighborhood. M.W. Sr. further testified that he occasionally managed the pickups from Brooklyn, particularly when his son was working. He recounted that he and his grandson bonded during these commutes over a shared enjoyment of music. He added that they shared a mutual affinity for the outdoors. During overnight visits, they would run, play catch, visit a nearby petting farm, and attend local community events.

M.W. Sr. further testified that M.W. and C.W. love each other very much, and that C.W. is very close to his paternal grandmother. He shared that he maintains a good relationship with C.G. and hopes to preserve it. Citing his own upbringing, M.W. Sr. emphasized the value of the extended family and the importance of intergenerational male role models for C.W. He asserted that a permanent Texas relocation would make regular contact "unnatural," as virtual communication is no substitute for in-person bonding.

On cross-examination, M.W. Sr. testified that he and his son had arguments in June 2023 and November 2023. He concluded that C.G. attributed the breakup to irreconcilable differences, but maintained that he never witnessed his son mistreat C.W. or physically assault C.G.

DISCUSSION

New York jurisprudence dictates that the standard governing relocation applications is the best interests of the child, as established by the leading Court of Appeals case, Tropea v. Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]). In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must weigh all relevant factors, none of which is dispositive standing alone. These factors include:

1) Each parent's motives for seeking or opposing the move;

2) The quality of the child's relationship with each parent;

3) The impact of the relocation on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the non-custodial parent;

4) The degree to which the custodial parent's and child's lives may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move; and

5) The feasibility of devising a visitation schedule that will preserve a meaningful relationship between the non-custodial parent and the child.

(Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741; see also Matter of Caruso v. Cruz, 114 AD3d 769 [2d Dept 2014]).

Courts have routinely recognized that a child's loss of regular access to a non-custodial parent and their extended family is a paramount concern. Consequently, New York courts will deny a relocation request unless the moving party demonstrates that the benefits of the relocation outweigh the harm to the relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent (Matter of Branch v. Lee, 248 AD3d 1110 [2d Dept 2026]]).

Applying the Tropea framework to the record, and assessing witness credibility and demeanor firsthand, this Court holds that C.G. has not established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that relocating to Texas serves C.W.'s best interests.

As a preliminary matter, this Court finds that C.G. seeks relocation in good faith. Her application is principally based upon her need for familial support during and after her recovery from knee surgery, her lack of a comparable support network in New York, and her belief that living expenses in Texas are lower. Similarly, the Court finds that M.W.'s opposition to the relocation is made in good faith. The evidence established that he has maintained a meaningful and loving relationship with C.W. and has consistently sought involvement in his son's life. His opposition is grounded in a legitimate concern that a cross-country relocation would substantially diminish his ability to maintain frequent contact.

It is evident that C.W. has a strong bond with both parents, who have each played significant roles in his upbringing. C.W. benefits from these robust parental relationships as well as from his connection to M.W.'s extended family, including the paternal grandparents.

This Court next considers the extent to which relocation would affect the quantity and quality of C.W.'s relationship with M.W. Texas is a substantial distance from New York and Connecticut. C.W.'s relocation would drastically reduce the frequency of in-person parenting time. Although modern technology facilitates communication, virtual contact is not an adequate substitute for regular, in-person interaction. Consequently, this factor weighs against relocation.

Another consideration is the extent to which the proposed move would economically, emotionally and educationally enhance the lives of C.G. and C.W. The Court credits C.G.'s testimony that family support is available in Texas to assist with her post-operative recovery and childcare. However, the exact nature and extent of her family's involvement remain unclear, as she did not produce any family member to testify. C.G. also failed to tender competent evidence regarding any economic benefit of relocation. Although she testified that comparable housing is less expensive in Texas, she offered no documentary evidence, such as rental listings in Texas, leases or market data, to substantiate this claim. She likewise offered no evidence of an out-of-state job offer that would improve her financial standing beyond her reported salary of at least $100,000, when she worked remotely from Brooklyn. Because C.G. currently leases a rent-stabilized apartment in Brooklyn and can work remotely, her claims of economic enhancement are speculative.

The Court also considers C.W.'s autism diagnosis and finds that the record contains no compelling evidence of educational or therapeutic advantages associated with relocation. Rather, the record establishes that the child has developmental needs that require ongoing educational and therapeutic support. This diagnosis further underscores the importance of both parents maintaining active, meaningful involvement in their child's educational, developmental, and medical care.

While the relocation may provide certain emotional and familial benefits to C.G. and indirectly to C.W., those benefits are heavily outweighed by the significant detriment of reducing the child's ability to maintain frequent, meaningful, and in-person contact with his father.

Alternative parenting schedules have been contemplated, as suggested by the Attorney for the Child, to preserve the father-child relationship. However, while extended holiday and school break visits may mitigate some adverse effects of relocation, they cannot replace the regular in-person contact the father and son historically shared. Virtual communication, while helpful, cannot replace a parent's physical presence at school events, medical appointments, or the ordinary day-to-day interactions that build a parent-child bond. Furthermore, M.W.'s limited disposable income makes cross-country travel for him or C.W. financially unfeasible several times per year. Thus, this consideration weighs heavily against relocation.

The Court has additionally considered C.G.'s allegations of domestic violence, which M.W. categorically denied. While C.G. commenced a family offense proceeding, it was ultimately resolved without a fact-finding determination or an admission of guilt. No police reports, medical records, photographs, or other corroborating evidence were introduced at the hearing. While the Court credits C.G.'s testimony that the parties' relationship became strained and contentious, limited weight is ascribed to these disputed allegations in this relocation analysis.

Accordingly, after considering the totality of the circumstances and balancing all factors set forth in Tropea, this Court finds that C.G. has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the permanent relocation of C.W. to Texas would serve his best interests.

ORDERED, that C.G.'s application to relocate with the subject child, C.W., to Texas is denied.

ORDERED, that the underlying custody petitions are set for a control date of July 21, 2026 at 2:15pm in Part 6.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The attorneys submitted proposed orders for this Court's consideration, which granted C.G. extended time with C.W. in Texas during her recovery from knee surgery, and pending a final determination.

Turquoise Haskin, J.