Since the Court of Appeals (the state's hghest appellate court) decided the Tropea case, all child relocation cases have been decided by one uniform principle and that is whether the proposed move would be in the best interest of the children. No longer is it permissible to show that the move would benefit the non-custodial parent financially or that the move was predicated upon a remarriage to a distant state, unless it could be shown that such move would be consonant with the best interest of the children.
For example, where a non-custodial parent seeks to relocate from New York to Florida because her new spouse resides in Florida, that fact in and of itself would not be sufficient absent testimony that the child would in some way benefit from the move e.g. better schools, more contact with the nuclear family including grandparents, or better climate if there is a health issue.
A radius clause forbidding a move to a distant geographical location will not per se block a move, since the violation of the radius clause or even compliance with its terms, will not permit or prohibit the move. If the court finds that such move would nevertheless be in the best interests of the children, they would be compelled to follow the
Tropea rule. In the final analysis, results may differ from judge to judge and a consideration of all of the facts of the case.