Leon v. Krikorian
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-28-Appeal.,P 17-412M |
| Citation | 271 A.3d 985 |
| Parties | Kenneth LEON v. Marysol KRIKORIAN. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Timothy J. Robenhymer, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Lauren E. Jones, Esq., Evan M. Kirshenbaum, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Long, JJ.
This case came before the Supreme Court on February 2, 2022, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant, Marysol Krikorian (Krikorian), appeals from a Family Court decision and order denying her motion for relocation with the minor child of the parties. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order denying the defendant's motion to relocate.
The parties were never married and together have one child, whom we shall refer to herein as C.K., a daughter born in February 2016. In January 2017, the plaintiff, Kenneth Leon (Leon), filed a miscellaneous petition alleging that he was being deprived of a relationship with C.K. and seeking, among other relief, an order (1) granting him joint custody, visitation, placement of his name on C.K.’s birth certificate, and a change of C.K.’s surname to his own; (2) requiring both parties to share in the support and expenses of C.K.; and (3) granting Krikorian physical placement of C.K. The matter was heard before a Family Court trial justice on a number of occasions.1 Pursuant to an order entered on May 9, 2017, the parties were granted joint custody and Krikorian was granted physical placement of C.K. After a further hearing on February 28, 2018, an order entered granting Krikorian the right to claim C.K. as a dependent on her tax returns; setting forth a visitation schedule; requiring Leon to place C.K. on his employer-sponsored health insurance and to pay retroactive child support; and declaring that "in exchange for [Leon] agreeing to allow [C.K.] to keep [her mother's last name], [Krikorian] agree[d] to leave child support open."
On April 18, 2018, Krikorian filed a motion to relocate with the minor child. Krikorian sought a modification of the previously set visitation schedule, stating that she desired "to relocate with the minor child to the State of Florida" and alleging that it was "in the best interest of the minor child that [she] and [the] minor child be permitted to relocate[.]" Krikorian asserted that she had been offered a job in Palm Beach County, Florida; that Krikorian's mother (C.K.’s maternal grandmother), who was alleged to be Krikorian's primary support system in the care of her two children (C.K. and C.K.’s brother, whose father is Krikorian's ex-husband), had moved to Fort Pierce, Florida; that she and her children would live with the maternal grandmother, who would assist in the care of the children at no cost to Krikorian; and that C.K. would attend a private Christian preschool tuition-free for two years. In the motion, Krikorian also raised concerns regarding Leon's care of C.K. and his requests for money in exchange for allowing Krikorian and C.K. to move to Florida and for C.K. to keep Krikorian's surname. On April 27, 2018, Leon filed an objection to the relocation motion, and in September 2018, the motion was scheduled for trial.
The trial justice heard testimony over three days from three witnesses: Krikorian; Leon; and Krikorian's brother-in-law, Thomas Dejordy. Krikorian testified as to her current living arrangement; ownership of a three-bedroom, mortgage-free single-family home in Warwick, Rhode Island; and her desire to relocate to Florida to live with her mother in a three-bedroom single-family dwelling, in a gated community with a pool. Krikorian testified that her mother, C.K.’s maternal grandmother, was her primary support system and that, since her mother's move to Florida, Krikorian has found it difficult to manage as a single mother of two. Krikorian also testified that her brother and sister, and their families, live in Rhode Island. Leon testified that his family, both immediate and extended, live in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and that C.K. sees that side of her family twice per month.
Krikorian testified about a job offer she received from a company in Florida. She stated that the move would enable her to provide for her children, including private school for C.K. Although Krikorian testified that she had been unsuccessful in her efforts to find comparable employment in Rhode Island, she failed to demonstrate that she had attempted to secure a job prior to the filing of the motion to relocate. Krikorian also recounted that Leon agreed to allow C.K. to keep Krikorian's surname so long as Krikorian dropped the issue of child support, retroactive support, and medical bills.2 During cross-examination, Krikorian acknowledged that Leon provides health insurance through his employer.
Krikorian testified as to the parties’ tumultuous verbal communications during visitation pick-up and drop-off, and through e-mail and text messages, which at times concerned the care of C.K. These included an event in which Leon called Krikorian a "bitch" in front of her son and a circumstance in which Leon attempted to awaken C.K. from a nap by throwing her in the air, shaking her, and "blast[ing]" music. Several exhibits concerning these occurrences were presented during trial. While Krikorian testified that she "fear[s] for [C.K.]" because of Leon's behavior, she was nonetheless willing to commit to a suitable visitation schedule if she were to relocate, and to further accommodate Leon's efforts to retain his relationship with C.K., including her waiving child support so that he could use that money to visit C.K. in Florida, and her bringing C.K. to Rhode Island during vacation time.
Leon acknowledged that he agreed to the relocation if Krikorian paid him $50,000, but he explained that this offer was intended to cover the cost of his travel to visit with C.K. if she relocated to Florida. Nonetheless, he was opposed to the move because he has a "great bond" with his daughter, sees her on a regular basis, is "very involved in her life," and "want[s] to be there for her[,]" all of which would be adversely impacted if C.K. were to move to Florida.
On December 16, 2019, the trial justice issued a written decision on the motion to relocate. After summarizing the witnesses’ testimony, the trial justice reviewed and applied the factors identified in Dupré v. Dupré , 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004), and in Pettinato v. Pettinato , 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990), to determine if relocation was in the best interests of the child. The trial justice made findings of fact and concluded that "[Krikorian] has failed to demonstrate to the [c]ourt that [C.K.’s] best interest would be satisfied by relocation to the State of Florida[.]" As a result, he denied Krikorian's motion to relocate to Florida, entering an order to that effect. Krikorian filed a timely appeal.
"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." Andrade v. Andrade , 252 A.3d 755, 760 (R.I. 2021) (quoting DePrete v. DePrete , 44 A.3d 1260, 1270 (R.I. 2012) ). "We will affirm the trial justice's award concerning custody and the best interests of the child unless his or her ‘factual findings overlooked or misconceived material evidence or were clearly wrong.’ " Id. (quoting DePrete , 44 A.3d at 1270 ).
On appeal, Krikorian avers that the trial justice ignored the uncontradicted evidence that Leon's primary motive in contesting her motion to relocate was his own pecuniary gain, as well as Leon's agreement to forgo his "demand" to change C.K.’s surname to his own in exchange for not having to pay child support. Krikorian further asserts that the trial justice ignored Leon's "obstructive and nasty conduct" toward Krikorian and C.K., which included calling Krikorian names, responding to her inquiries about C.K.’s physical state with "demeaning" and "rude" comments, and throwing C.K. in the air and blasting music to wake her from naps. In addition, Krikorian argues that the evidence was uncontradicted that the relocation would provide her with access to a family-support network and economic opportunities, neither of which are available to her in Rhode Island. Finally, Krikorian asserts that the trial justice ignored her offers to preserve the relationship between Leon and C.K. with suitable visitation, including an offer to forgo child support to allow for travel to Florida for visits with C.K.
In Dupré , this Court articulated the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether to grant a motion to relocate. Dupré , 857 A.2d at 257-59. Additionally, we determined that "[i]t 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." Id. at 257. "[T]he trial justice need not refer to every piece of evidence, rather [the trial justice] must refer to the specific evidence that prompted his [or her] decision." Saltzman v. Saltzman , 218 A.3d 551, 558 (R.I. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting H.J. Baker & Bro., Inc. v. Orgonics, Inc. , 554 A.2d 196, 202 (R.I. 1989) ). However, "the ‘paramount consideration’ in relocation cases is the best interests of the child[.]" DePrete , 44 A.3d at 1271 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Dupré , 857 A.2d at 252 ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. Ojeda
...and the best interests of the child unless his or her factual findings overlooked or misconceived material evidence or were clearly wrong." Id. (quoting Andrade, 252 A.3d at 760). In reviewing a Family Court trial justice's or magistrate's findings, we have recognized that "[i]t is the tria......