Michelle Andrade v. Christano Andrade, 252 A.3d 755

Background

Parties divorced in 2015; they have one daughter (born 2007). The Family Court incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) granting joint custody with physical placement to Michelle (mother) and an alternating shared-visitation schedule. A child-support worksheet filed in 2015 established support at guideline levels.
In June 2018 Michelle moved to relocate with the child to New Jersey/New York for employment and career advancement in the life-insurance industry; Christano (father) objected and, the same day, moved to modify child support to reflect a shared-placement arrangement.
The parties agreed to a guardian ad litem (GAL). At the September 25, 2019 hearing the GAL recommended denying relocation; evidence showed the child was doing well in Rhode Island and extended family support was primarily in Rhode Island. Mother proposed a schedule that tried to preserve near-equal time.
The trial justice denied the relocation motion, finding mother’s move was primarily career-motivated and would not provide net economic benefit to child, and that Rhode Island offered more stability and support for the child.
The trial justice granted father’s motion to modify support, finding the 2015 guideline did not account for shared placement and reducing support retroactive to June 29, 2018; the Family Court entered orders reflecting both rulings.
On appeal the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed denial of relocation but vacated the child-support modification for failure to find a substantial change in circumstances required to modify the agreed support order; the case was remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother may relocate with the child to NY/NJ	Relocation needed for career advancement and would improve mother’s and child’s quality of life; child wanted to move	Relocation would disrupt child’s school, extended-family support, and father’s meaningful involvement	Denied—trial justice did not abuse discretion; Dupré/Pettinato factors weighed against relocation; mother’s economic benefit was not persuasive
Whether father’s child-support obligation could be modified retroactively and prospectively	Initial guideline award was erroneous/unfair because it failed to account for shared placement; reduction justified	Original PSA and incorporated child-support order control; any modification requires showing substantial change in circumstances	Vacated—the trial justice failed to make the required findings that a substantial change occurred (statutory standard); modification reversed and remanded

Key Cases Cited

Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (sets out best-interest/Pettinato factors for custody and relocation analysis)
Dupré v. Dupré, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004) (identifies factors to guide relocation decisions and defers to trial justice’s case-by-case balancing)
DePrete v. DePrete, 44 A.3d 1260 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for custody/relocation findings; best interests paramount)
Saltzman v. Saltzman, 218 A.3d 551 (R.I. 2019) (trial justice need not cite every piece of evidence; affirms broad discretion in weighing relocation factors)
Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 186 A.3d 1074 (R.I. 2018) (relocation factors are case-specific; no single factor is dispositive)
McDonough v. McDonough, 962 A.2d 47 (R.I. 2009) (appellate review reverses only if trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence)
H.J. Baker & Bro., Inc. v. Orgonics, Inc., 554 A.2d 196 (R.I. 1989) (trial decision need only refer to evidence that prompted the decision)
McCann v. McCann, 396 A.2d 942 (R.I. 1979) (modification requires showing a change in circumstances affecting child’s needs or payor’s ability)
Heatherton v. Heatherton, 290 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1972) (same principle for support modification: rights fixed by decree unless change shown)
Hull v. Hull, 384 A.2d 1065 (R.I. 1978) (appellate review of support modification requires that trial findings not be clearly wrong)
Lentz v. Lentz, 651 A.2d 1242 (R.I. 1994) (order modifying child support is not directly appealable; may be reviewed via certiorari)
In re Shy C., 126 A.3d 433 (R.I. 2015) (raise-or-waive rule: issues not raised at trial are not preserved for appeal)