Articles Posted in Custody

The case of Alanna v. Duncan, upon divorcing, the couple agreed upon custody. However, the mother changed her mind and sought to modify the custody arrangement.

In New York, courts may entertain requests to modify custody agreements when there is a substantial change in circumstances that affects the well-being of the child. This could encompass alterations in a parent’s living situation, health, or financial stability. Another factor that might prompt a modification is a parent’s plan to relocate a considerable distance, with the court evaluating how such a move may impact the child’s relationship with both parents and overall stability. The child’s expressed preference, depending on their age and maturity, may also be considered, with the court ultimately prioritizing their best interests. Consistent violations of the existing custody order by one parent or concerns about parental fitness, such as substance abuse or neglect, can lead the court to reevaluate the custody arrangement. In all cases, the paramount consideration is the well-being of the child. Parents seeking modification should be prepared to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances, and the court may encourage negotiation or mediation to reach a new agreement that aligns with the child’s best interests. Understanding these factors is crucial for parents navigating the complexities of family law in New York.

Background

There are many reasons that parents may petition the court for a modification of a custody order. In the case of Matter of Ross v. Trento, the petitioner requested a modification because the child was more well-behaved at her house than at the father’s house.

In New York, modifying a custody arrangement is guided d by the principle that such changes should only occur upon a demonstrated change in circumstances that necessitates the modification to ensure the continued best interests of the child. The court assesses whether the proposed modification serves the child’s welfare more effectively than the existing arrangement. Key considerations include factors such as the child’s age, adjustment to their current environment, and the stability of both parents’ households. The party seeking modification bears the responsibility of presenting a substantial and material change in circumstances, emphasizing the court’s commitment to maintaining stability in the child’s life while prioritizing their overall well-being. This standard reflects the judiciary’s dedication to preserving the child’s best interests in custody decisions.

Background

The case of Of v. K involves a custody modification petitions filed be each parent with each seeking sole custody, which would required a modification to their joint custody arrangement.

To modify custody in New York, a parent must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. This change must warrant modification to serve the child’s best interests. Common grounds include parental misconduct, relocation, or issues impacting the child’s well-being.

Obtaining sole custody in New York demands evidence of the other parent’s unfitness or circumstances posing a risk to the child. Courts prioritize the child’s best interests, assessing factors like parental fitness, stability, and the child’s relationship with each parent. Clear and convincing evidence of these factors is crucial for a court to grant sole custody, ensuring the child’s safety and well-being.

The case of Mason v. Mason, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 4018, presents a complex scenario involving a relocation petition within the context of a custody dispute. The petitioner-respondent mother sought permission to relocate with the children to North Carolina while the father wanted the children to move with him to Georgia.

Relocation petitions in New York involve a custodial parent requesting court permission to move with a child, often to another state. Courts assess such petitions based on the child’s best interests, considering factors like the reasons for the move, the quality of the parent-child relationships, and the impact on future contact with the noncustodial parent. The seminal case of Tropea v. Tropea guides these determinations, emphasizing a case-by-case analysis to determine the outcome most likely to serve the child’s well-being. Relocation cases require a thorough examination of various factors to ensure a fair and informed decision aligning with the child’s best interests.

Background

In Latray v. Hewitt, the court considered a petition by the father seeking sole custody. New York courts seek to order joint custody when possible. Courts often prefer to order joint custody as it reflects a commitment to maintaining both parents’ involvement in a child’s life, provided it is in the best interests of the child. Joint custody, whether joint legal or joint physical, fosters the ongoing relationship between the child and both parents, acknowledging the importance of each parent’s role in the child’s upbringing. However, a court may order sole custody in specific circumstances where it deems it to be in the best interests of the child or children involved. The primary consideration is always the well-being and welfare of the child. Sole custody might be granted if one parent is shown to be unfit or poses a risk to the child’s safety, such as in cases involving substance abuse, domestic violence, or neglect.

Additionally, a court may consider the ability of the parents to cooperate and communicate effectively in matters concerning the child. If one parent demonstrates a consistent pattern of undermining the other’s relationship with the child or obstructing the other parent’s access, the court might lean towards awarding sole custody to the more cooperative and supportive parent.

The child’s preferences, if they are of an age where their opinions are considered, and the existing relationship each parent has with the child will also factor into the court’s decision. Ultimately, the court’s primary goal is to ensure a stable and nurturing environment that promotes the child’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being, and sole custody may be ordered when it aligns with these objectives.

In New York custody disputes, the weight given to a teenage child’s preferences can significantly impact the court’s decision. While the child’s input is considered, it’s not the sole determinant in custody proceedings. Judges take various factors into account, including the child’s age, maturity level, and ability to articulate their wishes. Additionally, the court evaluates the child’s relationship with each parent, their living arrangements, and overall well-being. While a teenager’s desires are taken seriously, the court ultimately prioritizes the child’s best interests.

Background

In 2013, the Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, a 17-year-old girl, to the father. This decision was affirmed by the court. In 2016, the mother initiated her third attempt at custody modification, seeking sole legal and physical custody. Despite objections from the child’s attorney, the Family Court conducted a full custody hearing without assessing if the mother had alleged a sufficient change in circumstances. Following the hearing, the Family Court concluded that the mother demonstrated changed circumstances justifying sole custody, stating it was in the child’s best interests. However, the court failed to provide a detailed explanation for its decision in the order, promising a full decision that was never issued.

In New York, courts will only modify a custody order if there has been a change in circumstances. Examples, a change in circumstances include one parent abusing the child or substance abuse. In Aquitani v. Aquitani, there is a history of the mother accusing the father of abuse. Those accusations as well as the father alleging that the mother had a substance abuse problems are the basis of the father’s request to modify the custody order.

In addition to hearing testimony from the parents, the court ordering a Lincoln hearing during which the judge heard testimony from the child regarding his custody and visitation preferences.

Background

When it comes to child custody, the  preference of the court is to award the parents joint custody because that is what is generally in the best interests of the child. In this case, each parent sought sole legal and physical custody. The court had to figure out if joint custody was feasible and in the best interest of the child or if awarding one of the parents sole custody was appropriate.

Background

Petitioner father and respondent mother are the parents of a 2-year old child, born on June 21, 2017.  The couple was never married. Paternity was established on November 22, 2017. The couple had an agreed upon parenting schedule, but did not follow it. Thereafter, Petitioner sought sole legal and physical custody of the child, asserting that his work schedule was more flexible. In the alternative, petitioner requests one day of parenting time a week. In response, the mother also filed a petition seeking sole legal and physical custody of the child.