IN RE: LOUIS B. (2020)

Order, Family Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2019, which, after a hearing, granted the petition for permission to relocate with the parties' child to Montauk, New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court's determination that relocation would be in the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Kevin McK. v. Elizabeth A.E., 111 A.D.3d 124, 129, 972 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept. 2013] ).  Petitioner father, who has sole physical custody of the child pursuant to a custody order entered on consent in 2017, established by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's life would be economically enhanced by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996];  Matter of Nairen McI. v. Cindy J., 137 A.D.3d 694, 27 N.Y.S.3d 854 [1st Dept. 2016] ).  The court properly considered, among other factors, the fact that the child had resided with petitioner and his wife for most of her life and that petitioner was responsible for her care (see Matter of Karen Michelle F. v Wilfredo C., 116 A.D.3d 561, 984 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1st Dept. 2014] ).  The court also took notice of respondent mother's limited involvement in the child's life and medical care.  Further, the teenage child expressed her preference for the move.

Petitioner and his wife both expressed their commitment to fostering a relationship between respondent and the child (see Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner, 96 A.D.3d 566, 947 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept. 2012] ).  Although the order adjusted respondent's visitation by eliminating two mid-week dinners per month with the child, it also added a week of summer vacation with her, thereby allowing respondent and the child to maintain a meaningful relationship through regular contact (see Karen Michelle F. v. Wilfredo C., 116 A.D.3d at 561, 984 N.Y.S.2d 51).

Respondent's contention that the court did not properly consider her ability to bear the costs associated with her parenting access is unavailing.  The order requires petitioner to cover the cost of the child's transportation to and from the visits with respondent, as well as the cost of respondent's transportation to the child's school in Montauk to attend certain of the child's school events.  In addition, the order provides that in the event respondent cannot afford the cost of food during her parenting time, she can communicate that need to petitioner and he will furnish the necessary funds.