Rhode Island

Case law framework; factor structure: 8. Parker describes the eight factors as nonexclusive, and Pettinato requires considering the combination and interaction of all relevant factors.

Authority

Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990); R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16

Source framework

Case law

Factor structure

8

Operative language

must weigh when relevant

Catch-all language

none

Presumptions in the original survey

None

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

§ 15-5-3.1(a): "irreconcilable differences which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage," decreed "irrespective of the fault of either party"

Authority

R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-5-2, 15-5-3, 15-5-3.1

Grounds without a misconduct showing

§ 15-5-3.1(a): "irreconcilable differences which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage," decreed "irrespective of the fault of either party"

Other grounds and proof conditions

adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion five years (or shorter in court's discretion), continued drunkenness, habitual use of opium, morphine or chloral, husband's neglect to provide necessaries for one year, gross misbehavior and wickedness (7), plus impotency, a status ground

Separation

three years "separate and apart," "whether voluntarily or involuntary," § 15-5-3, one roof not addressed

Timing

Ordinary decree: three months after trial and decision under § 15-5-23. Divorce on the three-year living-apart ground has a different final-judgment procedure permitting entry 20 days after decision under § 15-5-3. These routes cannot share one universal three-month entry.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, divorce from bed and board, § 15-5-9

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Court-made relocation factors. Initial custody: equal burdens; post-judgment allocation unresolved in the cited cases. No general advance notice period identified; conditional 48-hour address notice and permanent-removal restrictions apply.

Authority

Case law (Dupre 2004)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

initial determination: equal; post-judgment allocation unresolved in cited cases

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

no general distance threshold identified; pending-case permanent interstate removal restricted

Effect of silence

Section 15-5-14.1(d) requires written consent or a court order; no deemed-consent rule is specified there

What the court weighs

Dupré factors, with the child's best interests paramount: (1) nature, quality and duration of the child's relationship with each parent. (2) likelihood relocation enhances quality of life for child and relocating parent. (3) probable impact on the child's development. (4) feasibility of preserving the relationship through visitation. (5) extended family and support in both places. (6) each parent's reasons. (7) Hague status if international. (8) Pettinato factors as relevant. Not exhaustive and none dispositive. No presumption either way. A 'compelling reason' test was rejected (Dupré 2004).

Who carries the burden

Initial custody and placement determinations (including those that decide a relocation request): the parents come before the court 'on an equal footing' and share the burden equally. Dupré, 857 A.2d at 260-61; McDonough v. McDonough, 962 A.2d 47, 53 n.10 (R.I. 2009) (relocation decided with initial placement in the divorce); Valkoun v. Frizzle, 973 A.2d 566 (R.I. 2009) (initial custody determination in a paternity case). McDonough's footnote states that the court's precedent 'does not establish burdens or presumptions for an initial determination ... (as opposed to post-final judgment relocation)' without deciding the latter. Post-judgment relocations: the Supreme Court has affirmed four post-judgment relocation rulings on deferential review, applying the Dupré factors, without allocating a burden: DePrete v. DePrete, 44 A.3d 1260 (R.I. 2012); Andrade v. Andrade, 252 A.3d 755 (R.I. 2021), where the trial justice found the relocating mother 'failed to sustain her burden of proof'; Leon v. Krikorian, 271 A.3d 985 (R.I. 2022); Dawson v. Ojeda (R.I. 2023). These decisions do not establish a post-judgment burden or burden-shifting rule.

Notice and safety exceptions

No general advance relocation-notice period identified. In proceedings covered by § 15-5-14.1(a), the automatic orders take effect for the plaintiff upon signing the complaint and for the defendant upon service, with the statute also addressing waiver and acceptance of service. Subsection (d) bars permanent removal of minor children from Rhode Island without the other party’s written consent or a court order. If the parties share children, subsection (h) requires a party vacating the family residence to notify the other party or that party’s attorney in writing within 48 hours of the move of an address for receiving communication, unless a prior contradictory court order applies.

Which moves trigger the rule

No distance is defined. After judgment, reported cases are motions for leave to relocate out of state (Massachusetts, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas). During a pending case, § 15-5-14.1(d) reaches any permanent removal from the state.

Objections and the effect of silence

The cited relocation cases proceed by a motion and opposition at hearing. Section 15-5-14.1(d) requires written consent or a court order for permanent removal while its automatic orders apply; it specifies no separate objection deadline or deemed-consent procedure.

The modification threshold

Unclear. D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 738 A.2d 1081 (R.I. 1999), affirmed denial of a mother's request for placement and relocation for lack of a substantial change in circumstances (as described in Dupré). Later relocation decisions apply the Dupré factors without discussing a change requirement. By statute, a relocation due to military activation or deployment is not by itself enough to modify custody (§ 15-5-16(g)(7)).

Other qualifications

Dupré supplies a nonexclusive, case-specific relocation framework, rejects a compelling-reason requirement, and applies best interests. During a pending covered proceeding, § 15-5-14.1(d) also restricts permanent removal without written consent or court order; (h) requires address notice after a parent leaves the family residence.

Burden summary

Initial: equal; post-judgment: no allocation stated.

Notice summary

No general advance period identified; conditional 48-hour address notice

Trigger summary

No general distance threshold; pending-case interstate restriction

Compare parental relocation nationally