Opinion
301637/2008
11-22-2011
JG, Plaintiff, v. MG, Defendant.
The plaintiff-wife was represented by David Lansner, Esq., the defendant-husband was represented by Stuart Altman, Esq. The attorney for the child was represented by Frederic P. Schneider, Esq.
, J.
The plaintiff-wife and mother, Ms. J G, moved by Order to Show Cause for an order allowing her to relocate with the parties' child. The defendant-husband and father, Mr. M G, moved by Order to Show Cause for orders enforcing the parties' parenting plan; preventing Ms. G from moving with the parties' child to California or any other state; and if she does leave New York State, that he be awarded custody. A hearing was held on November 7, 14, and 15, 2011. At the hearing Ms. G, Mr. G and two additional witnesses for Mr. G testified.
The attorney for the child made an opening statement wherein he stated that it is the child's position that she wants to reside with her mother wherever her mother resides. The child also told her attorney and he conveyed to the court, that she loves her father very much and it would be her wish that her father live next door so that she could see him all the time.
The Testimony at the Hearing
Ms. G testified that she is the primary custodian of the parties' daughter, A G, born October 1, 2003. She seeks this court's permission to relocate to either San Diego, California or Nashville, Tennessee based on the fact that she has received job offers in both of those cities. She testified that she would prefer to move to Nashville because it is closer to New York where Mr. G resides and the offer there is with Simon & Schuster Company, a company which also has an office in New York. It would be her hope to "make my way back to New York."
According to Ms. G, she is a publisher who operated two companies, one of which published its own books as well as "packaged" books, i.e., would give books to a publisher on a disk who would then print and distribute it. Her other business was a literary agency. Neither company has generated any income for the last three years given the advent of the digital age where printed books do not sell in the quantities they once did and writers can self-publish. In addition, a book written by Billie Jean King for which she anticipated very high sales, "tanked." Ultimately, Ms. G was forced to close her office. She testified that she has close to $100,000 in business debt and is also personally responsible for a $50,000 line of credit.
As a result of her financial difficulties, Ms. G testified that she is living with a man, H B, with whom she had a romantic relationship. He has been paying all of her and the child's expenses, including at times, food, which Ms. G noted is an unusual expense for the family since A G eats only organic raw fruits and vegetables, seeds and nuts and is often hungry. However, Mr. B has told Ms. G that she and A Gmust move out by the end of the year. Ms. G's only other source of recent income is the $600 she earned teaching yoga and doing one day of public relations work for her brother.
During the pendency of this case, Mr. G originally paid child support in the amount of $700 per month, and then, even after an order of this court (Notice of entry and order and decision filed June 17, 2010, Exhibit 9) directed him to pay $1,150 per month he continued to pay only $700. He has now begun paying the full amount but as a result of his delay in paying the ordered support, arrears accumulated. He is not paying any of the expenses associated with A G's extra-curricular activities and to date, he has not paid the court-ordered counsel fees. Moreover, although Mr. G represented that he would obtain health insurance for the child, he never did and the wife was forced to obtain Medicaid for her. It is the wife's contention that the fact that the child is covered by Medicaid rather than private insurance significantly affects the quality of the care she receives. Ms. G stated that she took the child to the dentist to whom she had been assigned, but he is not a pediatric dentist and did not have appropriate equipment to treat a child. She asserted that A G is in need of immediate and extensive dental care.
With respect to her efforts to secure employment, Ms. G further testified that she thought it might be a good idea to look for a job outside of publishing so she contacted her clients and licensors but was unable to secure a job with a licensing agency despite her experience in this area. When it became apparent that she was unlikely to get a job in licensing, she returned to looking for jobs in publishing. She tried to place her existing book titles with other publishers so that they would create a job for her and bring her in-house. She contacted everyone she knew in book publishing and sent resumes to all the publishers with whom she had worked and with various editors and others in marketing. She registered for Monster.com and other websites and searched weekly on Publishers Weekly and Mediabistro. She also conducted an extensive LinkedIn networking campaign and contacted headhunters. A job log consisting of some six pages, introduced into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, details Ms. G's efforts to secure employment. As a result of her efforts, Ms. G received an offer from Baker & Taylor in their San Diego office as an associate publisher and from Simon & Schuster in their Nashville, Tennessee office, also for associate publisher position of their Christian Imprint Howard Books. Both jobs offer a salary in excess of $100,000 (the salary at Baker & Taylor is $125,000 and the salary at Simon & Schuster is $115,000) health insurance, life insurance, 401(K) plans, tuition reimbursement and paid vacation time. She would receive $15,000 from Baker & Taylor toward moving expenses and $7,000 from Simon & Schuster.
Regarding her living situation, Ms. G testified that she had to move out of her apartment located at 250 West 90th Street and into Mr. B's Westport home when she could no longer afford to pay the rent for her apartment. According to Ms. G at the time she moved in with Mr. B, Mr. G owned several properties and she asked if she could move into the brownstone located on 137th Street and Edgecombe Avenue which has a one-bedroom unit downstairs on the ground floor and a three-bedroom, two-and-one-half bath triplex, but that Mr. G denied her request. She testified that Mr. G currently occupies the triplex, which had been rented for $4,100 during the marriage and, without Ms. G's consent, converted the apartment downstairs to a bed and breakfast. Ms. G stated that she has not received any income from the properties. Moreover, she testified that she did not sign the contract of sale or deed when the marital residence was sold and did not know that a contract of sale had been issued.
Ms. G related that she attempted to speak to Mr. G about relocating but that he refused to discuss it with her, cursing her and telling her he hated her. She proposed three possibilities regarding her moving to San Diego: 1) that Mr. G relocate to San Diego as well; 2) that he have free access to A G and that she would forego child support and that he would contribute $500 per month to an account to be used strictly for the child's extra-curricular activities; and 3) that he spend larger chunks of time with A G - a week or more at a time - including when she traveled for business. Indeed, Ms. G averred that she needs Mr. G's help and would welcome his staying with A G when she had to travel. Ms. G also testified that she believes that Mr. G loves A G and that it is crucial to A G's development that she spend time with her father. Ms. G noted that Mr. G also has a sister and brother-in-law who live in California and that both of his parents live there as well.
With respect to where she and the child would live in San Diego, Ms. G stated that she began looking for housing in areas near her work where the school districts were highly ranked and had strong arts and sports programs. She claimed that she did the same when searching for housing in Nashville. She located schools in both San Diego and Nashville, which were of higher quality than the schools in the New York area. Ms. G noted that A G has changed schools for the past three years and has adjusted well to each new school, forming friendships easily and getting along well with her teachers.
Specifically, regarding the position in San Diego, which she has accepted, Ms. G testified that she would stay in a hotel until she found housing and has been working with a real estate broker who has been sending her listings on homes in Scripps Ranch and La Jolla, neighborhoods near her job with top ranked schools. Additionally, she testified that she could enroll A G in school quickly and she would be permitted to pick her up after school and bring her to the office until she was in an after-school program and there was a babysitter in place.
Ms. G stated also that throughout A G's life, she was the parent who enrolled and took the child to her extra curricular activities. In addition, Ms. G was actively involved in the child's school, going on all class trips and attending all teacher-parent conferences and school performances. Ms. G also arranged play dates for A G and took her to all of the birthday parties to which she was invited, buying presents for the birthday child. Ms. G also testified that she and the child attend church together. In addition, Ms. G testified that she is the parent who takes A G to the doctor. According to Ms. G, Mr. G has never taken A G to a doctor or dentist and when she broke her arm on the playground, he did not want Ms. G to take her to the emergency room or seek medical care.
According to Ms. G, the current visitation schedule gives Mr. G access to the child every other weekend and Wednesday afternoons after school. Mr. G comes to Westport to pick up the child and returns her to the home there. However, Ms. G discussed an incident that occurred this past Father's Day when Mr. G returned the child far earlier than he told her he would return and no one was at home. The child, who had been crying and screaming for her mother at the door, was taken in by a neighbor whom Ms. G did not know.
Mr. G testified that he and A G have a wonderful relationship and that he loves being with her. He claims that he taught her how to read and has fostered in her interests in many areas including Shakespeare, gardening and classical music. He has taken her to concerts and the theater on many occasions, to the Museum of Natural History and on frequent picnics in the park. He has taught her to box and the two also exercise and do yoga together. Mr. G also stated that when A G lived in New York he took her to ballet and gymnastic class, attended her school performances and took her to violin class twice a week for almost a year. He denied ever telling Ms. G not to take the child to the emergency room. He maintains that he offered to have her and the child live in his home and, in fact, has offered Ms. G, in writing, every home that he owns. No such writing, however, was produced at the hearing.
Mr. G complained in his testimony that Ms. G has interfered with his visitation with the child, for example, insisting that she drive him and A G to wherever he is taking A G when he comes to Westport to visit the child on Wednesdays. Mr. G alleged also that several times Ms. G failed to show up with the child at the Westport train station, but could not recall the dates when that occurred. In addition, he pointed out that Ms. G wrote on a school form that Mr. G is only permitted to pick up the child from school with written notification from Ms. G. Mr. G also testified that although he calls his daughter every day, Ms. G does not always allow him to speak with her and when he does speak with her, the phone remains on speaker phone. He asserted that when A G is with him, Ms. G speaks to her twice and asks her questions about what he and his girlfriend are doing.
On cross-examination, Mr. G acknowledged that the distance from the train station to the home where Ms. G first lived when she moved to Westport was extremely long and that accordingly, Ms. G offered to pick him up from the station and drive him to the home. He acknowledged that Ms. G brings A G to the train station when Mr. G picks her up for the weekend. He also conceded on cross-examination that while Ms. G did inform the school that he could only pick up A G from school if Ms. G writes a note advising the school of the change in schedule, it was A G who did not want to be picked up from school but rather wished to take the bus home with her friends. Mr .G also noted on cross-examination that although pursuant to the parties' parenting agreement he has access to the child on Monday afternoons as well as Wednesdays, he has not been exercising his time on Monday since A G and Ms. G moved to Connecticut. He stated that while his schedule is flexible enough to permit him to exercise this visitation, he would lose too much money if he did so. He admitted also that he only saw A G on alternate weekends during the six weeks she attended camp this past summer.
It is Mr. G's contention that Ms. G is jealous of his relationship with A G and wants to destroy it and if she is allowed to move he will never see A G again. He concluded, therefore, that wherever Ms. G were to live, it would be in the child's best interests for her to live with him. He testified additionally that Ms. G is not an honest person and he does not trust her, nor does he want to spend any time with her.
Regarding the possibility of his moving to either San Diego or Tennessee, he stated that he has thought about moving "because there is nothing [he] wouldn't do for [his] daughter. . . ," but that such a move would be difficult. He stated that he has a home here, a girlfriend whom he loves deeply and that he could not afford to move. He noted also that much of his family lives in the New York area and that A G sees her cousins almost every weekend. Mr. G acknowledged that he has a sister and brother-in-law who live in California and that his parents live there as well. He stated that his parents are quite elderly and his mother has been very ill recently.
Turning to Ms. G's job search, Mr. G, although admitting that he was not an expert in the publishing field, submitted into evidence lists of publishing account executivejobs, some of which it appeared on cross-examination, Ms. G had applied for and many for which Ms. G would not be qualified. Mr. G acknowledged that Ms. G is unable to take care of A G unless she has a job. He also testified that it's essential that A G see her mother as a strong, self-supporting woman.
With respect to his employment, Mr. G testified that he is a personal trainer and has begun an apprenticeship in carpentry. He stated that given the economic downturn, he lost many of the clients who used to train with him and has been required to reduce his hourly price. He has also contacted gym owners offering to work with new members free of charge to improve his business. He currently works approximately 15 to 20 hours per week as a personal trainer. He reports that he has five to seven clients. Regarding his carpentry apprenticeship, Mr. G believes that in about seven months he will be able to earn $25.00 per hour as an entry level carpenter and, eventually, $50.00 per hour as a master carpenter.
As to Mr. G's living situation, he testified that in his home located at 322 West 137th Street in Manhattan, he has two boarders living with him who have access to the entire apartment. When A G stays with him, she has a sleeping loft located in the hallway between Mr. G's bedroom and the bathroom. There is no mattress, rather, the loft is designed with specially fitted large mats in order to maximize the amount of head room. The loft is reached by a ladder that has no guardrails. As to his other properties, Mr. G testified that he owned four apartments, one of which he sold during the marriage and property located at 413A Halsey Street, and the home where he currently lives. He stated that the parties, working together, sold the marital residence located at 201 West 72nd Street, Apartment 14C. He denied ever selling any property without Ms. G's knowledge and consent.
On cross-examination, Mr. G testified that he did not know what health insurance was in place for the child when the parties were together and was not sure whether or not he paid for it. Nor did he recall if he was ordered to pay for medical insurance for the child. He stated that if the child were to live with him, he would take her to Dr. M N, who he thinks is a pediatrician, and to whom he has taken her twice before. He acknowledged that Dr. N's license to practice medicine in New York State had been suspended, but believed that it has been reinstated. Further, it is Mr. G's opinion that since the child is healthy, there is no need for her to go to a doctor. He acknowledged that on his website he posted that he had an incurable disease that crippled him and that he refused conventional medical treatment and cured himself. Regarding A G's teeth, Mr. G said that Ms. G had told him that A G had a toothache, but that A G told him that her teeth were fine. Additionally, Mr. G denied prohibiting Ms. G from seeking medical attention for A G when she broke her arm.
While Mr. G asserted that he would do anything for his daughter, he acknowledged on cross-examination that he is not currently paying for piano lessons, ballet lessons, gymnastics or any other extra-curricular activities for the child. Mr. G was not certain if he had contributed to the cost of camp for A G and did not recall whether Ms. G had to come to court in order to have him pay his share of the camp costs.
Testifying for Mr. G, Mr. A T stated that he has seen Mr. G with his daughter in 2010 and that they had a loving, affectionate relationship. Mr. T also testified that Mr. G is doing an unpaid apprenticeship with his company and that next spring he may be ready to work as a paid carpenter.
Mr. A F testified that he has known Mr. G for about ten years and has spent time with him and A G over the last year or two, going to Central Park on numerous occasions. A G was also the ring girl at his wedding approximately one and one-half years ago. He testified that he and Mr. G participate in a Shakespeare group for adults and that A G also participated at times. With respect to Mr. G's relationship with the child, Mr. F expressed his opinion that Mr. G is playful with her, but exercises appropriate, yet gentle, discipline when necessary. He noted that Mr. G exposes to many performances and has nurtured in her a deep appreciation for the arts.
Discussion
As the Court of Appeals noted in Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 736, [1996],
"[r]elocation cases . . .present some of the knottiest and most disturbing problems that our courts are called upon to resolve. In these cases, the interests of the custodial parent who wishes to move away are pitted against those of a noncustodial parent who has a powerful desire to maintain frequent and regular contact with the child. Moreover, the court must weigh the paramount interests of the child, which may or may not be in irreconcilable conflict with those of one or both of the parents."
The resolution of relocation disputes is left to the fact-finding and discretion of the lower courts and it is the lower court which must decide if the parent wishing to relocate has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation will serve the best interests of the child. (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727). Among the facts that the court must consider "include but are certainly not limited to, each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements" (Rubio v Rubio, 71 AD3d 862, 863 [2nd Dept 2010] quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741).
Here, based on the credible testimony proffered at the hearing, it is clear that Ms. G's reason for moving is to secure gainful employment which she cannot obtain in New York at this time. She presented evidence of her exhaustive search for employment and there is no reason to believe that her wish to take a job in either San Diego, California or Nashville, Tennessee is predicated on anything other than it is in those locales where she has been offered employment. That her intention in moving is solely for employment opportunities and not to damage the relationship between Mr. G and the parties' child, is supported also by Ms. G's proposed visitation schedules and her statement that she would prefer to take the position with Simon & Schuster in Nashville because it is closer to New York and it would be easier for Mr. G to see the child if they lived in Nashville and because Simon & Schuster has a New York office to which she might be able to eventually transfer.
While Mr. G opposes the move claiming that the wife wishes to destroy his relationship with the child and that he will never see his child again if Ms. G is permitted to move with the child, he acknowledged that it is essential that Ms. G have a job and that she cannot take care of without a job. When asked whether he could move to either Nashville or San Diego, he stated that he had considered such a move because there is nothing that he would not do for his daughter. The court notes that since the husband only works part-time as a personal trainer with some five to seven clients, he could arguably work as a trainer in another city. Therefore, a parallel move is not beyond the realm of options in this case and the court may consider "the possibility and feasibility of a parallel move by an involved and committed noncustodial parent as an alternative to restricting a custodial parent's mobility." (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740).
In addition to the custodial parent's reasons for wanting to relocate and the noncustodial parent's loss of access, the court may also consider the feasibility and desirability of a change in custody. As the Court of Appeals stated in Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739-40, "where a child's ties to the noncustodial parent and to the community are so strong as to make a long-distance move undesirable, the availability of a transfer of custody as realistic alternative to forcing the custodial parent to remain many have a significant impact on the outcome." Here, while the child's ties to her father are undeniably strong, there is no community to which she and Mr. G are strongly connected, and given the child's ties to her mother who has always been her primary caretaker, and the fact that she has expressed through her attorney, her wish to live with her mother, the court declines to consider a change of custody.
With respect to the quality of the relationships between the chid and the custodial and noncustodial parent, the court is well aware of the close and loving relationship that this child has with her father and does not wish to minimize the significance of that relationship. Mr. G taught how to read and fostered in her a love of the arts and music and is an extremely important part of her life. They spend a good deal of quality time together. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Ms. G has had the primary child-rearing responsibilities throughout 's life. Ms. G attends all of 's school events and goes on virtually all class trips, arranges play dates and sleepovers, takes to birthday parties and to church. She has arranged all of 's extra-curricular activities throughout the years. She is the parent who always takes her to the doctor and dentist.
Indeed, this court finds Mr. G's testimony regarding the child's health and well-being and how he would care for her were he to have custody somewhat troubling. For example, Mr. G stated that he did not know what health insurance was covered by during the marriage. Further, when Mr. G was asked if he was aware of whether needed dental attention, he said that he had asked her about her teeth and she reported to him that her teeth are fine. That Mr. G would rely on an eight year old child's assessment of her teeth rather than taking her to a dentist, is somewhat alarming. Mr. G also testified that if needed a dentist, he would take her to Dr. F V, but he was not sure if Dr. V treated children. In addition, it is Mr. G's opinion that when a child is healthy there is no reason to take the child to the doctor. He suggested that if he had custody of , he would take her to Dr. M N, a pediatrician whose license to practice medicine had been suspended. Finally, the incident on Father's Day where Mr. G left the child in front of her home when no one was there raises a serious question about his judgment.
While not weighing heavily in its decision, the court also has some concerns about Mr. G's home. The loft space where sleeps, as described by Mr. G does not appear to have guardrails and, moreover, seems to lack privacy. While a lack of privacy might not be of great concern right now, it may well become one as the child gets older. Moreover, Mr. G has boarders who have access to the entire apartment. The court also questions the appropriateness of exposing to all of Shakespeare's works, some of which might be frightening to such a young child, and encouraging her participation in a group, comprised solely of adults except for her, who act out Shakespeare's plays.
Turning next to the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of 's contact with Mr. G and the feasibility of preserving the relationship should the wife be allowed to move, there is no reason to believe that Mr. G will not be able to have meaningful and frequent periods of visitation with the child and that their relationship cannot be preserved. (See, e.g., Matter of Harrsch v Jesser, 74 AD3d 811; Matter of Aruty v Mormando, 70 AD3d 683 [wnd Dept 2010]; Noble v Noble, 52 AD3d 490 [2nd Dept 2008]; Malcolm v Jurow-Malcom, 63 AD3d 1254 [3rd Dept 2009[).
Ms. G is committed to ensuring that Mr. G and 's relationship be preserved. In addition to suggesting that Mr. G move to San Diego, a city where she thought he might appreciate the fresh fruits, vegetables and sunshine and where he might be able to have more clients, Ms. G also proposed that Mr. G come to visit for longer periods of time as outlined in the parties' parenting plan and that they total the current amount of visitation time and reallocate it. She noted that her job will require her to travel and suggested that Mr. G could come and stay with while she was away. Finally, she proposed as an another alternative that Mr. G have free access to and she would forego basic child support. Given Mr. G's relatively flexible work schedule, certainly any one of these proposals would offer Mr. G the opportunity to spend significant amounts of time with and thus maintain their strong, loving and affectionate father-daughter relationship. He also can speak to on Skype on a daily basis so as to keep abreast of her day to day activities.
The court does not credit Mr. G's contention that Ms. G is trying to undermine and interfere with his relationship with . The court notes that he was unable to cite a specific date when Ms. G failed to appear with the child. In addition, while it is true that Ms. G wrote a note to school advising that any changes in how will come home from school would be in writing, Mr. G acknowledged that it was who wanted to take the bus home with her friends rather than have Mr. G pick her up at school. That the wife might wish to speak to the child when she is with Mr. G, just as he wishes to speak with her when she is with Ms. G, and asks questions about what Mr. G and his girlfriend are doing, could be interpreted as Ms. G's expressing an interest in what is going on in Mr. G's household. Finally, the fact that Ms. G offers to drive Mr. G and the child to where ever they are going in Westport because Mr. G does not have a car, might just as easily be viewed as her trying to facilitate visitation rather than interfere with it.
Notably, although Mr. G currently spends a good deal of time with , he has chosen not to travel to Connecticut to see her on Mondays despite the fact that he has access time on that day. In addition, this past summer, he acknowledged that while was in day camp, he saw her only on alternate weekends. In fact, he testified that he declined to travel to Westport to see her and contended that Ms. G should have brought the child to New York City after camp. Nevertheless, despite not seeing her during the week for six weeks while she was in camp, Mr. G maintained a very close relationship with the child. Accordingly, there is no reason why if given longer periods of visitation during vacations and when Ms. G travels for business, he cannot spend as much time with as he currently does, albeit on an adjusted parental access plan. This is precisely what is contemplated by the parties' parenting agreement which provides that "[i]f the Child's residence is changed to a location where the parental access schedule contained herein is impractical, then the parents shall adjust the parental access schedule in a manner which does not reduce the time per year that the Child spends with the Father. If parties are unable to agree upon an adjusted parental access plan, parties shall resolve difference through mediation. If mediation does not succeed, either party may petition court to set a new access schedule."
Furthermore, the court notes that although the parties have family in the New York area, Mr. G has a sister and brother-in-law who live in California. In addition, his elderly parents reside there and he testified to traveling to California recently when his mother was ill. Ms. G has a brother and sister-in-law living in California as well.
With respect to the question of whether the child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally, there is no doubt that this move is an economic necessity. (See, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739; In re Alaire K.G. v Anthony P.G., 86 AD3d 216 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Harrsch v Jesser, 74 AD23d 811 [2nd Dept 2010]). Ms. G demonstrated that she cannot find suitable employment in New York and that she must now move out of Mr. B's home where Mr. B pays all of the expenses, including, at times food, for Ms. G and . The amount of support which Mr. G pays is certainly not sufficient to support the child. Moreover, Mr. G does not contribute to the cost of 's extra-curricular activities and has accumulated child support arrears in the past and currently owes counsel fees to wife as ordered by the court on April 5, 2011. In addition, although Mr. G maintained that he offered Ms. G a place to live in writing, he produced no such writing in court. In any event, he currently lives in the brownstone where Ms. G had asked to live and uses the garden apartment as a bed and breakfast.
If Ms. G moves to either San Diego or Nashville, she will be able to provide with a financially stable home. She will have sufficient funds to secure comfortable housing in a top ranked school district for , pay for extra-curricular activities and will have the benefit of private health insurance.
In sum, the court determines based on all of the proof that Ms. G has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the best interests of the child.
Accordingly, the wife's motion to relocate to either San Diego, California or Nashville, Tennessee is granted. If the parties cannot agree on an adjusted access schedule per their parenting agreement within thirty (30) days of entry of this Decision/Order, the parties shall each submit a proposed parenting plan within thirty (30) days of the relocation. Upon consideration of the plans, the court shall set forth a schedule designed to mitigate the impact of Ms. G's relocation and to ensure a consistent, meaningful and enduring relationship between Mr. G and his daughter.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court. All further requested relief not specifically granted is denied. Counsel for the plaintiff-wife is directed to serve the within order, with Notice of Entry, within five (5) days of entry.
ENTER
_________________________________
HON. DEBORAH A. KAPLAN,
J.S.C.