New York Family Law Blog
In Matter of Shayne FF. v. Julie GG., the Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed a Family Court order that dismissed a father’s petitions to modify an existing custody and visitation arrangement. The case raised issues about what a parent must prove to change a prior custody order, how the court should evaluate alleged changes in a child’s needs over time, and the importance of considering transportation arrangements and holiday parenting time when circumstances shift. It also examined how a court should interpret relocation clauses in prior orders and the correct legal standard for deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of a petitioner’s case.
Background Facts
The parents had one child, born in 2009. In 2012, they entered a consent order granting the mother sole legal custody and the father parenting time every other weekend, along with holiday time “as agreed between the parties.” The order prohibited the mother from moving more than 50 miles from her then-current home without the father’s consent or a court order.
In May 2020, the father filed a petition to modify custody, alleging that the mother had moved to another county in violation of the order and that her move increased the travel time for exchanges. He also claimed she had not agreed to holiday parenting time. The mother sought dismissal, and the father later filed an amended petition in March 2021.
At the fact-finding hearing, the father testified and called witnesses, including the mother. He stated that his travel time had increased from 10–15 minutes to over an hour each way and that the lack of a transportation provision in the 2012 order created disputes. He also said the mother rarely agreed to holiday visits. The mother acknowledged moving to Onondaga County and that exchanges required more time but argued her move was within 50 miles. She offered a map showing a radius but not her prior address. After the father presented his case, the mother moved to dismiss.
Issue
The issue was whether the father’s evidence, taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to him, was sufficient to establish a change in circumstances warranting a modification of the 2012 custody and visitation order.
Holding
The court held that the father’s proof, if credited, showed a potential change in circumstances. This included evidence that the mother’s move increased travel time for exchanges and that she routinely refused to agree to holiday parenting time. The court found that these factors, along with the passage of nine years since the original order, could affect the child’s best interests. The order dismissing the father’s petitions was reversed, and the matter was sent back for a new fact-finding hearing before a different judge.
Rationale
A parent seeking to modify a custody order must first show that circumstances have changed since the prior order. If this threshold is met, the court then considers whether modification would serve the child’s best interests. When deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the petitioner’s case, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true, draw every reasonable inference in their favor, and resolve credibility issues in their favor.
The court found that Family Court read the petitions too narrowly. Even though the 2012 order prohibited relocation beyond 50 miles, that did not mean any move within 50 miles was automatically acceptable or that other changes could not be considered. The father’s allegations about increased travel time, transportation disputes, and the absence of holiday parenting time were relevant and could support a finding of changed circumstances.
The father also presented evidence that the child, through the attorney for the child, wanted the court to address travel and holiday schedules. A child’s evolving needs as they grow older can be part of the change-in-circumstances analysis, particularly when many years have passed since the prior order. The appellate court noted that the Family Court appeared to weigh credibility and side with the mother’s version of events rather than applying the correct procedural standard.
The court also found that Family Court improperly limited testimony that could have given a fuller picture of the family’s circumstances, including each parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs. Because the 2012 order was based on the parties’ consent and not a prior judicial determination, more extensive evidence could have been important in assessing the child’s best interests. These errors deprived the father of a fair opportunity to present his case, requiring reversal and a new hearing.
Conclusion
Matter of Shayne FF. v. Julie GG. shows how courts determine whether a parent has presented enough evidence to move forward with a custody modification case. It underscores that relocation clauses in custody orders do not prevent courts from examining other alleged changes in circumstances. Increases in travel time for exchanges, disputes over transportation, and a lack of agreed-upon holiday parenting time can all be relevant factors. Courts must apply the correct standard when deciding motions to dismiss, taking the petitioner’s evidence as true and giving them the benefit of reasonable inferences. They must also allow relevant testimony that could affect the best-interests analysis.
If you are involved in a custody or visitation dispute, it is important to understand how to present evidence that meets the legal standard for a change in circumstances and protects your parenting rights. A New York family lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can guide you through the process, help you build your case, and represent you in court to work toward an outcome that serves your child’s best interests.