Jurisdiction determines which states court can hear the case. If a parent from RI moved to Florida, nobody would think its right to file a case in Colorado. Could they file in Florida? It depends.

To solve these issues, each state has adopted their own set of statutes, often referred to as a state’s version of the “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act” (UCCJA) or “Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act” (PKPA). In Rhode Island, General Laws Chapter 15-14.1 deals with these issues.

There are three general types of jurisdiction types which determine if Rhode Island is the appropriate state to hear child issues in family court. They are “home state” jurisdiction, “emergency” jurisdiction, and “convenient forum” jurisdiction. Below are abbreviated descriptions of each type of jurisdiction. As such, they are not comprehensive, and you should consult an attorney before making a decision on your own as to where jurisdiction may exists for children in your particular case.

Home State Jurisdiction

In general, Home State jurisdiction arises in the state where a child has most recently resided for a six month consecutive period. Examples:

• Joe and Jane and their son live in Rhode Island and have lived in RI for years. Jane moves to Massachusetts four months ago with their son. RI has home state jurisdiction.
• Same as above but Jane moved 9 months ago. Rhode Island does not have home state jurisdiction.

Emergency Jurisdiction

Emergency jurisdiction arises temporarily if the child is physically in Rhode Island and has been abandoned or it is necessary when a child, or their parent or sibling, has been subjected to actual or threatened mistreatment or abuse. The child must be in Rhode Island. Example:

• Mom and child have lived out of state for years. Child visits dad in Rhode Island and discloses, and dad believes, that child has been subjected to routine physical abuse by mom or her boyfriend. Assuming the allegations are credible, Rhode Island courts may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction.

Convenient Forum Jurisdiction

Convenient forum jurisdiction arises, generally, when no other state has exercised “home state” or “emergency” jurisdiction, the child is in Rhode Island, and the court determined that Rhode Island is the most appropriate forum for jurisdiction. Example:

• If mom and child have lived out of state for years but have never actually stayed in one place for more than a few months, and the child comes to Rhode Island. Dad lives an yet another state. If mom seeks to establish orders relating to the child, Rhode Island would likely be named the most convenient forum for jurisdiction.

For more detailed answers, contact a Rhode Island interstate custody and relocation attorney.

Don P. Moyer, 401 461-7800, Moyer Divorce Law

As an example, if the kids are living with dad primarily, and the parties have joint custody, then dad would need to communicate with mom about major issues, such as health, education, or religious affairs. Dad does not need to comply with mom’s wishes: mom does not have a veto ability. Mom simple must be kept in the loop. Mom on the other hand, would have the ability to, say, go to the school to speak with the teacher, or get copies of medical records, which she would not be able to do if dad had sole custody.

Physical custody, in Rhode Island, is generally described as “possession” or “physical possession.” This term described which parent is the primary caretaker of the children. The “non-custodial” parent would pay child support to the parent with “possession,” and their time with the children would be described as visitation.

Don P. Moyer, 401 461-7800, Moyer Divorce Law

1. The wishes of the child’s parent or parents regarding the child’s custody.
2. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parent or parents, the child’s siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest.
4. The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.
6. The stability of the child’s home environment.
7. The moral fitness of the child’s parents.
8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.

Don P. Moyer, 401 461-7800, Moyer Divorce Law

This pivotal case is the centerpiece in any litigation regarding relocation of children out of the State of Rhode Island.  The case came about when a judge implemented a trial Justice denied a petition to allow the removal of the child from the jurisdiction on the basis that there was “no compelling reason to do.”

The RI Supreme considered that standard incorrect, and laid out certain factors to be considered in any relocation matter.  With the understanding that the “best interest of the children” is the foremost consideration when considering any custody, placement, or visitation issue, the Court laid out the following factors:

1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.
2. The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.
3. The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development. Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.
4. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties. Certainly, the history and past actions of the relocating parent either to foster the relationship between the child and the other parent, or to frustrate the relationship, would be an important consideration. So, too, would be the failure of the non-relocating parent to avail himself or herself of available opportunities for visitation.
5. The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations.
6. Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation.  A parent’s desire to relocate with his or her children ought not be predicated upon a whim. On the other hand, as we previously have noted, a relocating parent need not establish a compelling reason for the move. The motivation for the relocation, however, will be a significant consideration. Clearly, a vindictive desire to interfere in the other parent’s relationship with the child would weigh heavily against the parent seeking to relocate.The A.L.I. Principles identify the following non-exclusive list of purposes for a relocation as valid:
   1. to be close to significant family or other sources of support,
   2. to address significant health problems,
   3. to protect the safety of the child or another member of the child’s household from a significant risk of harm,
   4. to pursue a significant employment or educational opportunity,
   5. to be with one’s spouse or domestic partner who lives in, or is pursuing a significant employment or
      educational opportunity in, the new location,
   6. to significantly improve the family’s quality of life. The relocating parent should have the burden of proving the validity of any other purpose. The A.L.I. Principles further provide that a move for a valid purpose is reasonable unless “its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving, or by moving to a location
      that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent’s relationship to the child.” The motives of the parent opposing the move also should be considered. A parent may be objecting to the child’s relocation to secure a financial advantage or to exercise a measure of control over an ex-spouse, rather than out of a sincere desire to foster a relationship with the child.
7. In cases of international relocation, the question of whether the country to which the child is to be relocated is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be an important consideration.
8. To the extent that they may be relevant to a relocation inquiry, the Pettinato factors also will be significant.

We reemphasize that our recitation of factors to be considered is not intended to be exhaustive. Nor is any one factor dispositive. Each case will present its own unique circumstances that a trial justice must balance and weigh as he or she deems appropriate.