44 A.3d 1260
R.I.2012Background
- Beth DePrete sought court permission to relocate with two children from Rhode Island to Texas to marry Col. Paul Longo.
- Final divorce judgment (2008) had joint custody with plaintiff having physical possession and defendant extensive visitation; 2009 order expanded visitation.
- Plaintiff alleged relocation would improve children's quality of life and allow shared future with Longo; defendant opposed.
- Family Court held a six-day hearing in 2010; witness testimony addressed the relationships, logistics, and potential schooling and support in Texas.
- Hearing Justice denied relocation after applying Dupre and Pettinato factors, finding relocation not in children's best interests.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the denial as not an abuse of discretion and consistent with Dupre/Pettinato analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was denial of relocation consistent with Dupre factors? | DePrete argues Dupre supports relocation for child welfare. | DePrete and Longo contend relocation jeopardizes father-child bonds and stability. | Yes; denial upheld under Dupre and Pettinato balancing. |
| Did the court properly apply Dupre's best-interests framework? | Court misapplied Dupre by focusing on relocation benefits to plaintiff. | Court properly weighed child welfare and continuity of relationships. | Yes; factors weighed comprehensively with credible findings. |
| Did the court adhere to standard of review for family-court custody findings? | Appellee argues trial court erred in factual findings and credibility determinations. | Court gave due regard to witness credibility and evidence presented. | Yes; no abuse of discretion found. |
| Were ALI Principles and Dupre interplay properly treated? | ALI language supports focusing on primary custodial parent and feasibility of preserving contact. | Court did not adopt ALI principles slavishly and used a case-specific approach. | Yes; court properly cited Dupre and treated ALI considerations as non-mandatory. |
| Was relocation to Texas against the children's best interests given family and educational ties in Rhode Island? | Texas could offer better schools, marriage stability, and future support. | Relocation would disrupt primary relationships, extended-family support, and existing routines. | Yes; maintained Rhode Island environment served best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupre v. Dupre, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004) (establishes, in relocation, best-interests balancing via Dupre factors)
- Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (guides Pettinato factors for relocation analysis)
- Keenan v. Somberg, 792 A.2d 47 (R.I. 2002) (endorses cautious, discretionary evaluation of best interests)
- McDonough v. McDonough, 962 A.2d 47 (R.I. 2009) (affirmation of deference to hearing-justice discretion in custody cases)
- Valkoun v. Frizzle, 973 A.2d 566 (R.I. 2009) (supports close review of factual findings and discretion limits)