The case of Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH. involved two custody modification petitions filed by both parents of a child born in 2014. The matter required the court to decide whether there had been a change in circumstances since a prior custody order, and if so, what custodial arrangement would serve the child’s best interests. Both parents had a history of substance abuse, and the court evaluated each parent’s current circumstances, their ability to provide stability, and the child’s needs before deciding primary physical custody.
Background Facts
In June 2018, the parties entered a consent order granting joint legal custody to both parents. The child’s paternal grandparents had primary physical custody. The mother had supervised parenting time every other week, supervised by the maternal grandmother. The father’s parenting time was supervised by the paternal grandfather as agreed between them.
In October 2019, the mother sought to modify the order to grant her sole custody with supervised visitation to the father. In February 2020, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, citing his sobriety and stable home. The mother amended her petition, alleging changes in circumstances, including the loss of her alternate week visitation after the child began school in Binghamton near the paternal grandparents’ home.
The child had lived with the paternal grandparents for two years, had friends and school activities in the area, and did well academically. The father lived nearby, participated in daily care, and received support from the paternal grandparents. He had maintained sobriety since 2018, completed treatment, and continued with counseling and random testing. The mother lived in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, stayed with the maternal grandmother during visitation, had a past positive drug test for cocaine, and was not in a current rehabilitation program. She admitted to drinking alcohol on weekends without visitation. Both parents had histories that impacted their parenting abilities.
Issue
The issue was whether there had been a change in circumstances since the 2018 custody order that warranted a modification, and if so, whether granting the father primary physical custody would serve the child’s best interests.
Holding
The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court’s order continuing joint legal custody, granting primary physical custody to the father, and awarding the mother visitation on alternate weekends, holidays, and during summer.
Rationale
A parent seeking modification of custody must first show a change in circumstances. The court found that the parties’ relocation to different states, the child reaching school age, and the prior order’s lack of a school designation constituted a change. This justified reviewing what arrangement served the child’s best interests.
In making a best interests determination, the court considered the quality of each parent’s home environment, the need for stability, each parent’s ability to encourage a relationship with the other parent, past performance, relative fitness, and the ability to meet the child’s needs.
The evidence showed the child was integrated into the Binghamton community, living with the paternal grandparents, and engaged in school and activities. The father was actively involved in daily care, lived close to the grandparents, and had their support. His sobriety was documented through treatment participation and clean tests. He managed anxiety and depression through prescribed medication and medical supervision.
The mother’s supervised visitation schedule had been reduced due to the child’s schooling. She had completed past treatment but was no longer in a program and continued to consume alcohol. Although she sought out some drug testing, she did not undergo random screening.
The court found that both parents had prior issues affecting parenting ability but determined the father’s current situation provided more stability. The paternal grandparents’ willingness to assist further supported continuity in the child’s life. The court gave weight to the father’s active involvement in school, healthcare, and extracurricular activities.
While a subsequent allegation about the father’s mental health arose after the hearing, no further proceedings were initiated. The court determined that the record already contained sufficient evidence of the father’s mental health history, and the allegation did not warrant further review.
According deference to Family Court’s credibility findings and weighing all factors, the Appellate Division agreed that the child’s best interests were served by maintaining joint legal custody, granting primary physical custody to the father, and setting a consistent visitation schedule for the mother.
Conclusion
Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH. shows how New York courts handle custody modification cases when both parents have complex histories. The court first determined that a change in circumstances had occurred before reviewing which arrangement would serve the child’s best interests. Stability, home environment, parental involvement, and access to support networks were central to the decision.
If you are facing a custody dispute or seeking to modify an existing order, it is important to understand the legal standards and the type of evidence courts consider in making a best interests determination. A New York family lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can review your circumstances, explain your legal options, and represent you in court to protect your rights as a parent. Contact the firm to schedule a consultation and learn how they can assist you in achieving the best possible outcome for your family.