- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Roopnauth-Tajeshwar v. Tajeshwar
- Docket
- 2024-12701
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03312
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03312 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Hamantini Ranju Roopnauth-Tajeshwar and Danesh Tajeshwar are the parents of a child born in December 2016. In a so-ordered stipulation dated January 24, 2023, the parties agreed that the father would have legal and primary residential custody of the child, subject to the mother’s parental access. In March 2024, the mother filed a petition to modify the stipulation, seeking primary residential custody and permission to relocate the child from New York to Guyana.
After a hearing, the Family Court, Queens County denied the mother’s petition. The mother appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Family Court’s order denying the mother’s modification and relocation petition, without costs or disbursements. The court applied the two-part framework governing custody modification and relocation: first, the movant must demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification to protect the child’s best interests; and second, a parent seeking relocation “bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests.”
The court found that the Family Court’s determination was “supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.” The evidence showed that the child was thriving in the father’s care in a stable home environment. The mother failed to establish that the proposed relocation to Guyana would enhance the child’s life emotionally or educationally or that the move would not negatively impact the child’s relationship with the father. The court gave appropriate deference to the Family Court’s firsthand evaluation of the parties’ testimony and credibility.
Takeaways
This decision applies the established relocation framework articulated by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea. The burden is on the relocating parent to demonstrate that the move serves the child’s best interests, considering factors including each parent’s reasons for or against the move, the quality of the relationships with each parent, the impact on the child’s educational and emotional development, and the feasibility of preserving the non-relocating parent’s relationship with the child. International relocations face particular scrutiny because of the difficulty of maintaining meaningful parental access across international borders.
The case also demonstrates the practical difficulty of overcoming a consent custody arrangement. When a parent has agreed to a custody arrangement giving the other parent primary residential custody, modifying that arrangement requires a showing of changed circumstances — a higher bar than an initial custody determination.
Why It Matters
For parents contemplating relocation with their children, this case underscores that the burden is substantial, particularly for international moves. Courts will not grant relocation petitions based solely on the relocating parent’s preferences or family ties in the destination country. The relocating parent must present concrete evidence that the move will benefit the child and must address how the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent will be preserved. For parents with existing custody arrangements in their favor, the case confirms that stability and continuity are important factors that weigh against modification.