Andrade v. Andrade

• Decision Date: 16 June 2021
• Docket Number: P 15-1228,No. 2019-467-Appeal.,2019-467-Appeal.
• Parties: Michelle ANDRADE v. Christano ANDRADE.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

252 A.3d 755

Michelle ANDRADE

v.Christano ANDRADE.

No. 2019-467-Appeal.

P 15-1228

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 16, 2021

Alyssa M. Volpi, Esq., for Plaintiff

Robert M. Brady, Esq., for Defendant

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court.

The plaintiff, Michelle Andrade, appeals from two Family Court orders—the first denying her motion to relocate with the parties’ minor child, and the second granting the motion of the defendant, Christano Andrade, to modify child support. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order denying the plaintiff's motion to relocate and vacate the order granting the defendant's motion to modify child support.

IFacts and Travel

The parties were married on November 14, 2009, and have one child, a daughter born in 2007. In July 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce alleging that irreconcilable differences had arisen between them, causing the irremediable breakdown of the marriage. The matter was heard before a Family Court magistrate on September 17, 2015, on which date plaintiff's complaint was granted; the parties were awarded "joint custody of the minor child with physical placement to be with" plaintiff, and defendant was granted "all reasonable rights of visitation." The magistrate also found that the parties had freely and voluntarily entered into a property settlement agreement (PSA) dated September 17, 2015, which was "incorporated by reference but not merged into the final decree." These provisions were reflected in the decision pending entry of final judgment entered on September 29, 2015, and the final judgment of divorce entered on December 23, 2015.

The PSA provided for "joint custody of the minor child with physical placement to be with [plaintiff] and [defendant] to have all reasonable rights to visitation * * * on a schedule of two days, two days, three days per week, alternating weekly."¹ The defendant was to pay child support "in compliance with Rhode Island law and federal statutory guidelines." The amount of child support was established at $1,471 per month in accordance with a child-support guideline worksheet filed with the court on September 17, 2015.²

On June 1, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to relocate with the minor child. The plaintiff stated that "[f]or purposes related to her employment, and otherwise related to the welfare and happiness of herself and the parties’ minor child, [plaintiff] wishes to relocate with the minor child to New Jersey in the near future." The plaintiff also asserted that "[i]t is the [sic ] best interest of the parties’ minor child for the minor to relocate with [plaintiff] to New Jersey for multiple reasons, including considerations related to the financial and emotional well-being of the child." On June 29, 2018, defendant filed an objection to plaintiff's motion, emphasizing the shared parenting plan in place, his responsibilities of taking the child to health-related visits, and the fact that the parties’ families were located in Rhode Island.

On the same day as the filing of his objection, defendant also filed a motion to modify child support. In support of that motion, defendant stated that "the parties have for years maintained a shared parenting arrangement [and, therefore,] the calculation of the child support should be done in such a fashion to take into consideration the shared parenting arrangement of the parties[.]" The plaintiff objected to this motion. The parties subsequently agreed to the appointment of Attorney Kerry I. Rafanelli as the guardian ad litem for the minor child in relation to these proceedings.

A hearing on both motions was held on September 25, 2019, at which the parties and Attorney Rafanelli were the only witnesses. The plaintiff testified that she wanted to relocate to New York or New Jersey because that is where the insurance industry, in which she works, is primarily located and it would help her professionally in her "career growth[.]" She further stated that her goal was to become a compliance officer, but that she had been unsuccessful in her efforts to secure such employment in Rhode Island. The plaintiff also testified that she had been offered a position with New York Life in White Plains, New York. Although the job would have increased her salary by $16,000, she did not accept the offer because she could not relocate with the child. The plaintiff's current employer, however, agreed to match that offer, ultimately increasing plaintiff's salary by the same amount. The plaintiff also submitted a proposed visitation schedule into evidence that would allow defendant to see the child "as close to half" of the time as possible.

Attorney Rafanelli testified that, in his report, he "recommended that the motion for relocation be denied." He summarized his report, stating that he

"received, reviewed and considered information from each of the parties to include their self[-]reporting, school records, medical records, position statements in the form of Guardian Ad Litem worksheets; and then, utilizing all the facts and circumstances as presented, as well as conducting a home study of each parent's home wherein I met the child * * *, I applied the Pettinato [ v. Pettinato , 582 A.2d 909, 913-14 (R.I. 1990) ] factors, so-called, and the Dupré [ v. Dupré , 857 A.2d 242, 257 (R.I. 2004) ] factors, so-called, against the facts as presented by mother in support of her motion for relocation and father in opposition to that. So, I weighed the facts and circumstances as presented and applied, through my eyes as a Guardian Ad Litem, the appropriate case law factors."

Attorney Rafanelli also recommended that "the parents recognize the fact that it's a shared parenting arrangement" between them.

The defendant testified that, although the rotation of when he and plaintiff had possession of the child had changed since the initial arrangement, they each still had the child for the same amount of days in a calendar year. The defendant also testified that he had a number of concerns regarding their child relocating:

"[O]ne of which is continuity with schools. She went to three different elementary schools. She's been now in a middle school. In terms of stability within her own family structure, my family is very actively engaged. My mother, my father, my grandparents, they have ongoing, continuous relationships with them, where being in New York City would be prohibitive for her to maintain. I personally am actively involved in all elements of [the child's] life, in addition to [plaintiff]. I've been to every school event that she's had. * * * I maintain continuity with her social relationships by hosting sleepovers, bringing her to the bowling alley, and doing all the things a kid generally does[.]"

The defendant further testified that he did not believe he could have the same relationship with the child if she were to relocate with plaintiff.

On October 8, 2019, the trial justice rendered a bench decision. He found that plaintiff had "failed to sustain her burden of proof under either Dupré or Pettinato relative to a request to relocate; and * * * that it's not in [the child's] best interest to relocate to either the New Jersey or New York area." As to defendant's motion to modify child support, the trial justice found that "the [g]uideline as presented [in the initial divorce] was in error at that time and completely unfair to the [d]efendant. As indicated, it took no consideration for the shared placement and should have." The trial justice modified defendant's child-support obligation from $1,300 per month to $765 per month, retroactive to June 29, 2018. He then further reduced the ongoing support payments by $383 per month, until such time as the amount defendant had "overpaid" since June 29, 2018—$15,165—is satisfied.

Orders were entered reflecting the trial justice's decision. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the Family Court erred both in denying her motion to relocate and in granting defendant's motion to modify. We address her arguments in turn.

IIThe Denial of the Motion to Relocate

The plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred in denying her motion to relocate by "overlooking and/or misconceiving evidence." The plaintiff contends that the trial justice misstated and misunderstood the evidence presented in determining that an increase in income was her sole motivating factor in wanting to relocate, when she presented evidence that she was looking to move forward in her career path towards becoming a compliance officer in the life insurance industry. She also argues that the trial justice overlooked evidence that the child desired to relocate and that moving would enhance the overall quality of their lives. Lastly, plaintiff argues that the trial justice erred in ruling against the admissibility of evidence that plaintiff had attempted to present regarding alleged prior acts of domestic violence by defendant.

AStandard of Review

"On review, this Court will not disturb the findings of fact made by a justice of the Family Court with respect to the issue of custody and the best interests of the child unless the hearing justice abused his or her discretion in making such findings." DePrete v. DePrete , 44 A.3d 1260, 1270 (R.I. 2012). "It is the trial justice who is in the best position to determine what factors [regarding relocation] may be relevant on a case-by-case basis, and [his or her] discretion in this regard should not be unduly constrained." Dupré , 857 A.2d at 257. We will affirm the trial justice's award concerning custody and the best interests...