Relocation, Custody, and Meaningful Parenting Time in New York

In Matter of Carrington v. Pepitone, 2026 NY Slip Op 04193, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed a common but difficult custody issue: what happens when one parent is awarded custody and permitted to relocate the child out of state, but the parenting time schedule left behind for the noncustodial parent is not realistic. The case involved unmarried parents of a child born in 2022. The mother lived in Suffolk County and had been the child’s primary caretaker. The father lived in Massachusetts and sought sole legal and residential custody. After a hearing, Family Court granted the father’s petition, permitted the child to relocate to Massachusetts, and awarded the mother alternate weekends and Wednesday dinner visits.

On appeal, the Second Department affirmed the custody award to the father, but modified the parenting time provisions. That distinction is important. The appellate court did not find that the Family Court was wrong to award the father sole legal and residential custody. Instead, it found that the parental access schedule was too limited and not sufficiently tailored to the practical realities of the case.

The custody holding turned on the familiar New York best interests standard. The court reiterated that custody decisions are made under the totality of the circumstances, including stability, the parents’ home environments, past parenting performance, parental fitness, ability to guide the child, and willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent. In an initial custody determination involving relocation, the strict relocation-factor analysis does not control. Relocation is one factor among many in deciding what serves the child’s best interests.

Applying that standard, the Second Department held that the father’s custody award had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court credited evidence that the father was more likely to foster a positive relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, that the mother at times failed to adequately inform the father about the child’s health, and that the father could provide a stable home environment.

But the parenting time schedule was a different problem. The appellate court emphasized that parental access is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and the child, and that absent extraordinary circumstances, a noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable access. Alternate weekends plus a Wednesday dinner visit did not make sense where the parties lived in different states. The schedule was especially inadequate because the father himself testified that the mother was a fit parent and that he wanted her to have parenting time on three weekends per month.

The Second Department remitted the case to Family Court for a new determination setting a more liberal weekend schedule, a specific birthday schedule for both parents, and an equitable allocation of transportation costs based on the economic realities of the case.

For New York custody litigants, Carrington v. Pepitone reinforces two practical points. First, being the historical primary caretaker does not automatically control the outcome if the court finds the other parent better promotes stability and the child’s relationship with both parents. Second, if relocation is granted, the parenting time schedule must still be workable, meaningful, and specific. A court cannot treat parenting time as an afterthought simply because one parent now lives farther away.

If you are facing a New York custody or relocation dispute, the details matter. Contact Mindin & Mindin, P.C. for a confidential consultation about custody, relocation, parenting time, and how to build a record that protects your relationship with your child.