IN RE: Amanda FRIEDMAN (2007)

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated January 18, 2007, as denied her petition for leave to relocate with the subject children to California.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties are divorced and have joint legal custody of their two young children.   The mother has physical custody and has been a full time mother to the children since shortly after the parties separated.   The father has visitation with the children every week and every other weekend, which he has never missed.   He also attends parent-teacher conferences and is involved in the children's extracurricular and school activities.   The mother seeks to relocate the children to California, where her current husband has moved for an employment opportunity.

 The record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court's determination denying the mother's petition for leave to relocate with the children to California (see Matter of Brzozowski v. Brzozowski, 30 A.D.3d 517, 518, 817 N.Y.S.2d 127;  see generally Matter of Turnure v. Turnure, 37 A.D.3d 727, 728, 831 N.Y.S.2d 216;  Matter of Magwood v. Martinez, 35 A.D.3d 743, 827 N.Y.S.2d 243).   When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the children (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145;  Matter of Brzozowski v. Brzozowski, 30 A.D.3d at 518, 817 N.Y.S.2d 127;  Matter of Confort v. Nicolai, 309 A.D.2d 861, 862, 766 N.Y.S.2d 63).   Although the mother sought to relocate to meet the demands of her second marriage, which are “valid motives” (Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d at 739, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145), the mother failed to demonstrate that her reasons justify “the uprooting of the children from the only area they have ever known, where they are thriving academically and socially, and where a relocation would qualitatively affect their relationship with their father” (Matter of Confort v. Nicolai, 309 A.D.2d 861, 862, 766 N.Y.S.2d 63;  Matter of Mascola v. Mascola, 251 A.D.2d 414, 415, 674 N.Y.S.2d 393).   Thus, the Family Court, in considering the relevant factors, properly determined that relocation was not in the children's best interests (Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145;  Matter of Brzozowski v. Brzozowski, 30 A.D.3d 517, 518, 817 N.Y.S.2d 127;  Matter of Confort v. Nicolai, 309 A.D.2d 861, 862, 766 N.Y.S.2d 63;  Matter of Mascola v. Mascola, 251 A.D.2d 414, 415, 674 N.Y.S.2d 393).