Michelle Andrade v. Christano Andrade

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed a Family Court order denying Michelle Andrade’s motion to relocate with the parties’ minor child and an order modifying Christano Andrade’s child-support obligation. The Court affirmed the denial of relocation, concluding that the Family Court properly considered the child’s best interests and relevant relocation factors. It vacated the child-support modification because the Family Court failed to find a substantial change in circumstances and remanded the matter.

Holdings

1. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to relocate because it properly weighed the relevant relocation and best-interests factors and reasonably concluded that relocation was not in the child's best interests.
2. The trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying relocation.
3. The plaintiff waived appellate review of the evidentiary issue because she did not articulate at trial why the excluded questions were relevant to relocation.
4. A child-support order may not be modified under Rhode Island General Laws § 15-5-16.2(c)(2) without findings establishing a substantial post-decree change in circumstances, including a change in the child's needs or the obligor parent's ability to meet those needs.
5. Because an order modifying child support is not appealable, the Supreme Court treated plaintiff's challenge as a common-law petition for writ of certiorari in the interests of judicial economy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court abused its discretion or overlooked or misconceived material evidence in denying plaintiff's motion to relocate with the child.
2. Whether the Family Court properly considered the governing relocation and best-interests factors.
3. Whether plaintiff preserved her challenge to the exclusion of evidence concerning alleged prior domestic violence.
4. Whether the Family Court could modify the existing child-support order without finding a substantial post-decree change in the child's needs or the defendant's ability to pay.
5. Whether the plaintiff's challenge to the child-support modification order was properly before the Supreme Court as an appeal or should be treated as a common-law writ of certiorari.

Disposition

vacated