Every case we handle at our firm is important. We work on both large and small cases with the same level of commitment and responsibility. However, I must highlight this particular case, as the victory we achieved for our client represented an extraordinary advancement in matters involving minors, and the decision established jurisprudence.
The case of Jusino González v. Norat Santiago (2023 TSPR 4) was the first to interpret Law 102 of 2018 regarding the relocation of minors.
It all began when a fellow attorney, believing the case to be very complex, contacted the undersigned and coordinated an appointment for what was then her client to visit our offices. The colleague understood that, given the complexity of the case and other non-judicial factors that could influence it, it would be advisable for me to handle the matter. Upon reviewing the facts and the possibilities of achieving justice for a mother and her children, I did not hesitate, recognizing that it was a controversy that would impact many mothers in similar circumstances in a world where stability is tied to quality of life, which largely depends on employment and economic capacity to provide for one’s children.
The case involved a mother whose profession was that of a nurse anesthetist. In Puerto Rico, she did not have a permanent job; her work varied according to employer needs, and she worked as an independent contractor, without benefits or job security. In her effort to find a work environment that provided such security, she sought employment outside Puerto Rico. She received a job offer in the state of Florida that could not be matched by any employer in Puerto Rico. The offer included additional benefits, representing not only job security but also the possibility of a higher quality of life for her and her family. The litigation lasted five years, perhaps a bit longer, during which we fought so that the mother could relocate to the United States in light of a job offer that would never be matched in Puerto Rico. During the process, her interest in relocating was even questioned, and there were attempts to somehow limit the right she had to rebuild her life.
Law 102 of 2018 was enacted after Hurricane María, and given the circumstances at that time, many parents sought to relocate their children outside Puerto Rico. At that point, there was no law or clear guideline to provide judges with the elements upon which to base their decisions, and the standard of the child’s best interest was very broad. A degree of uniformity was required, and that was one of the main objectives of the law.
We fought and argued Law 102 of 2018. The case went to the Court of Appeals on several controversies and to the Supreme Court on three occasions, also on different issues, with the relocation itself being one of the instances in which we sought review. On the first occasion, the Supreme Court issued an exhortation. Finally, when the case was not moving forward and the determinations of the Court of First Instance strayed from the purpose of the law and the best interests of the child, the highest judicial forum granted certiorari with a forceful decision, whose legal foundations can serve as guidance for the assertion of other rights.
Ultimately, we were able to ensure that our client could relocate with her children to find employment that would improve their quality of life.
In the favorable decision we obtained, the Supreme Court determined and interpreted the criteria for transferring jurisdiction in cases involving minors.
This is a leading case, as it was the first interpretation of the law that created jurisprudence in favor of children and parents seeking to leave the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico.
Currently, the case is studied in law schools throughout Puerto Rico, and at our firm, we are extremely proud to have achieved justice for our client and to have helped lay the foundation for how a relocation should be handled when there is a possibility of a substantial improvement in a minor’s living conditions.