DePrete v. DePrete
Rhode Island Supreme Court
44 A.3d 1260 (2012)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Beth DePrete (plaintiff) and Michael DePrete (defendant) married in August 2000 and had two children during their marriage. In March 2007, Beth filed for divorce, and the trial court entered a divorce judgment in May 2008. The court awarded the couple joint custody of the children, with Beth awarded primary physical custody. In October 2009, Beth filed a motion seeking to relocate with the children to San Antonio, Texas, as a result of her engagement to Colonel Longo, an active-duty officer of the United States Air Force. Beth argued that the children’s general quality of life would improve in Texas. The court heard testimony from Beth, Michael, and Colonel Longo before the court denied Beth’s motion. The trial court noted Beth and Michael both enjoyed a deep and loving relationship with the children. The trial court also concluded Michael was a more credible witness and Beth would not endeavor to actively foster a relationship with Michael and the children. Beth appealed, contending the trial court incorrectly concluded it is not in the best interests of the children for the children to relocate to Texas. Beth instead argued that, upon determining that the move to Texas would improve Beth’s quality of life, the trial court should have considered an appropriate visitation agreement for Michael.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
