271 A.3d 985
R.I.2022Background:
- Parties unmarried parents of C.K. (born Feb. 2016); mother (Krikorian) had physical placement; parents awarded joint custody.
- Father (Leon) filed a 2017 petition seeking custody-related relief; multiple Family Court orders followed addressing custody, placement, visitation, and tax/insurance issues.
- In April 2018 Krikorian moved to relocate with C.K. to Florida, citing a job offer, maternal-grandmother support, and educational opportunities; Leon objected.
- Three-day Family Court trial heard testimony from both parents and a family witness about living arrangements, job offer, family supports, and interpersonal conflicts during exchanges.
- The trial justice applied the Dupré relocation factors, found Krikorian failed to show relocation was in C.K.’s best interests (noting weak job proof, mortgage-free RI home, family contacts in RI/MA, and credibility findings), and denied the relocation.
- On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding the trial justice properly weighed Dupré and Pettinato factors and did not overlook material evidence; it also directed that child-support issues be addressed in Family Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Krikorian) | Defendant's Argument (Leon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relocation to Florida is in child’s best interests | Relocation offers employment, family support, free preschool, and improved quality of life for child and mother | Move would impair father’s close relationship and involvement with child | Denied — trial justice properly applied Dupré factors and found relocation not in child’s best interests |
| Whether court ignored economic/ employment evidence supporting relocation | Job offer and economic opportunity in Florida were uncontradicted and decisive | Job evidence insufficient and lacked concrete description; RI home is mortgage-free | Held father’s credibility and trial findings supported rejection of the economic-benefit claim |
| Whether father’s motives were primarily pecuniary (name change/child-support bargaining) | Father opposed move for financial leverage and agreed to surname trade for leaving support open | Father testified to sincere bond and involvement; objection was genuine | Held trial justice credited father’s sincerity; no error in finding motives sincere |
| Whether trial justice should have weighed father’s abusive/obstructive conduct more heavily | Father’s hostile conduct and incidents with child showed unfitness, supporting relocation | Mother did not seek an unfitness finding and offered to preserve visitation; incidents were part of acrimony | Held trial justice permissibly focused on child’s best interest and not on petty disputes; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupré v. Dupré, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004) (articulated multi-factor test for relocation and entrusted factor selection to trial court discretion)
- Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (listed best-interest factors for child-custody determinations)
- DePrete v. DePrete, 44 A.3d 1260 (R.I. 2012) (standard for reviewing Family Court custody findings)
- Saltzman v. Saltzman, 218 A.3d 551 (R.I. 2019) (trial judge need not cite every piece of evidence but must identify evidence prompting decision)
- Andrade v. Andrade, 252 A.3d 755 (R.I. 2021) (deference to trial justice on child-best-interest findings)
- H.J. Baker & Bro., Inc. v. Orgonics, Inc., 554 A.2d 196 (R.I. 1989) (trial court must refer to evidence supporting its decision)
- Guertin v. Guertin, 870 A.2d 1011 (R.I. 2005) (credibility determinations are within trial justice’s discretion)
- Hartwich v. Hartwich, 105 A.2d 821 (R.I. 1954) (child support cannot be bartered away; public policy protects child welfare)
- Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 186 A.3d 1074 (R.I. 2018) (trial justice best positioned to determine relevant factors case-by-case)