Alvi v. Chaudhary, decided July 2 in a non-precedential opinion offers a glimpse into the world of relocation during our new age of remote work. This is a custody case involving two children born to husband/wife physicians. The children are 10 and 8. One has an autism diagonsis which has yielded an individualized education plan in the Montour (Pa.) School system.
Father is a radiologist who lives in Danville but works remotely for a hospital in New Jersey. Mother is an endocrinologist who filed to relocate with the children to Florida. The parties had shared physical custody by agreement. As one might expect, Father filed opposition to a relocation that would substantially reduce his custodial time and two days of hearing took place during Summer 2024.
At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court awarded primary custody to Father with summers to be split on a rotating three week basis. The wrinkle was that Mother’s three week stints were to be in Pennsylvania, meaning that she would need to make arrangements for time off and to stay locally. Mother’s appeal is described as limited to the requirement that her custodial time be in Pennsylvania when she would be resident in Florida and the children were out of school.
As a radiologist, Father indicated that he has effective control over his schedule and this allows him to put child care and support priorities first. He also noted that because their one child is on the autism spectrum, changes in routine are difficult and that is why he defends the order specifying that Mother’s partial custody be exercised in Pennsylvania rather than Florida. He also noted that since their separation and divorce Mother had made several housing changes before the relocations, each of which was challening for their one child. Mother seems to have acknowledged some of this in her own testimony.
In ruling as it did the trial court noted that each parent was competent and that each was subject to a possible relocation. But, based on the facts as adduced in July and August 2024 an award of primary to Father with split summers seemed the current right sized schedule. In a footnote (No. 2) the Court observes that this entire custodial arrangement seems fluid and subject to change but that the order for a split of summer with Mother coming to Pennsylvania was manageable and in the best interests of the kids. In fact, the footnote almost seems an invitation to Mother to seek a change to Florida visits once matters settled out. At the time the case was heard, the parties had been divorced a bit more than sixteen months.
This is the new custody world. Anyone involved in a relocation case on either side (i.e., stayers and goers) needs to be prepared to discuss what opportunities exist for remote employment.
If you are the Dr. Chaudhary of this world, it can be frustrating. The other parent wants to head to “greener” pa$ture$ and you can swing it managing the kids if she leaves. So, why are you being asked about what your opportunities might be to work remotely or relocate to swampy Florida? The answer is that the “polestar” of all custody litigation is the best interests of the kids. So, it might mean that your career path is investigated in terms of whether you can read New Jersey patient x-rays in Florida with the same facility you can while living on the banks of the Susquehanna in central Pennsylvania. Your lawyer is going to tell you to grin and bear that cross examination while sticking to the themes of (a) kids are stable and happy in Pennsylvania and (b) you really don’t know how your employer would respond to a sudden request for you to move another 900 miles away from New Jersey.
We should add that this new approach to relocation is not making it easier to attain. Courts still “like” the communities where they sit as places to raise children. But in a world where judges are coaxed to make a complete record in the context of every custody case, they will be inclined to consider all options when remote work options may be available.
The case is here: