IN RE: a Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act Glenn X. (2026)

Petitioner Glenn X. (hereinafter "the father") and Respondent Cassie X. (hereinafter "the mother") are the parents of the subject children E.X. (date of birth: XX/XX/13), A.X. (date of birth: XX/XX/15), and O.X. (date of birth: XX/XX/16) (hereinafter "the children"). This is a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6. This action commenced with the father's filing of a modification petition on June 6, 2025.

A Fact-Finding Hearing was conducted by the Court on June 12, 2026. The mother was represented by Attorney Emerson Mitchell, Esq., the father was represented by Attorney Robert Lalonde, Esq., and the children were represented by Attorney Olivia Molineux, Esq., of Citizens Concerned for Children, Inc. The Court heard testimony from the parties and received exhibits into evidence. The Court has reviewed the final summations filed by counsel. On June 15, 2026, a Lincoln Hearing was held with A.X., O.X., and the AFC  ¹ .

The Court searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the Sex Offender Registry, and the Family Court's child protective records, and notified the parties and the attorneys of the results of these searches.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 15, 2025, a Custody and Visitation Order on Consent was entered following negotiations by counsel for the parties and the Attorney for the Children pursuant to previously filed petitions. Under the order, the mother and father were granted joint legal custody with the mother to have final decision-making authority. The mother was granted placement of the children, with the father to have parenting time on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., plus additional time as agreed by the parties. The father was also granted regular telephone contact with the children. Further, it was ordered that, "the father shall continue with treatment as recommended by CARS [Cayuga Addiction Recovery Services] and shall continue to abstain from using alcohol and shall continue to abstain from using all other illegal substances."

On June 6, 2025, less than two months after entry of the Custody and Visitation Order on Consent, the father filed a modification petition seeking an increase in his set weekly parenting time to Saturdays at 5:00 p.m. until Mondays at 5:00 p.m. He alleged that the parties were "unable to negotiate a workable visitation schedule that allows for additional time" with him.

On June 9, 2025, the mother filed a modification petition by order to show cause seeking permission to take the children on vacation later that month. The mother alleged that, despite her offer for make-up visits, the father would not agree to the vacation because it would fall over two of his Sunday visits. The Court granted the mother's requested relief on the papers and ordered that she may (but is not required to) provide the father with make-up parenting time. On July 18, 2025, the mother filed a second modification petition seeking sole legal custody, suspension of the father's visitation, and an order requiring the father to be reevaluated for substance abuse.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Court found the mother to be completely credible. She has done an exceptional job raising three bright, kind, and sociable children. She has gone out of her way to support the children's relationship with their father despite the difficult circumstances created by his ongoing substance abuse.

The father is an untreated addict, and the Court did not find him to be credible. The only believable testimony he gave was his admissions to currently using alcohol and marijuana, facts which he would be hard pressed to deny given his drug testing records (Respondent's Exhibit H), photographs taken by the mother (Respondent's Exhibits A and B), and text conversations with the mother wherein he declares that complying with court orders and testing for alcohol and drugs is "bullshit" and a "fucking joke" (Respondent's Exhibits E and F). However, the Court did not believe the father's characterization of how much alcohol and marijuana he uses and finds that he minimizes his substance abuse and the issues created thereby. Attorney Mitchell astutely summarized the evidence at trial as follows:

" . . . the father continues to find himself in a cyclical use of substances. The father has shown periods of sobriety, followed by increasing alcohol and cannabis use which is then followed by binging and escalation to cocaine. All of which culminate in crisis calls to the mother or some other individual. Calls that are filled with admissions, apologies and pleas for help. Once the cycle begins again, the father then reports that he is just drinking occasionally and using cannabis and he can handle it. This was his phase during the hearing. It has been the history for this family each time it comes back to court.

As can be seen from Exhibits A through H, the father has prioritized his use of substances over securing a stable and safe schedule of contact for the children. As can be seen from Exhibits E, F, and H, the father was openly defiant and refused to follow the court order, despite knowing that adherence to the order would be the only way of regaining any normal schedule of contact with the children.

Clearly the father is unable to prioritize the children's well-being above his own addictions and thus is not an appropriate joint custodian for the children." Attorney Mitchell Summation.

The parties met in AA in 2010. The father confided in the mother that smoking marijuana always leads him back to drinking alcohol. The father was sober from 2010 until 2014. In 2014, the father relapsed. The relapse was so alarming that the mother cancelled their wedding. The father regained his sobriety in 2014, and the parties eventually married. The father remained sober until 2018 when the mother noticed a change in the father's behavior. She confronted him, and he admitted that he had been sneaking around and smoking marijuana. She took this seriously given his admission that smoking marijuana leads him to drink alcohol. He told her he would stop. Another relapse occurred in 2019; again, the father admitted to sneaking around and smoking marijuana. This time, the father said that he would not stop. The mother told the father the marriage was over and contacted a divorce attorney. Although he briefly stopped smoking when she first contacted the divorce attorney, he resumed using marijuana by April or May of 2020. The mother confronted the father after he took the children on an outing, and he admitted to smoking marijuana while driving the children in his truck. The children were only seven, five, and three years old at the time. The mother testified, "from then on, our separation was happening."

As predicted by the mother, the father began drinking alcohol again by the fall of 2020. The father admitted on the witness stand that he was "struggling" with alcohol during this time, that he was drinking four to five days per week, and that he was consuming "more than reasonable." The parties continued to live together until the mother and children moved out of the home in January of 2021. During this time, the mother observed the father drinking, and the father also told the mother about his drinking. In late 2020 or early 2021, the father drove to downtown Ithaca to plow snow, a job he performs in the winter. The father told the mother that he was so drunk when he arrived downtown that he napped in a parking lot he had been hired to plow. The father also told the mother that while drinking at home alone, he passed out in front of the wood stove with the door open and that he was lucky the house did not burn down.

The father later admitted to the mother that he was also using cocaine during this time. The father had become aggressive, and he had thrown a phone through their living room window, punched a hole in one of their walls, and threw a dog leash through one of their walls. Angry that the mother would not allow him to drive with the children in tow, the father called the mother a "cunt" loudly at a softball practice where the children and paternal grandmother were present.

In February of 2021, the father was charged with Driving While Intoxicated after crashing his truck and refusing to submit to a breathalyzer. He also kicked a hole in the wall of the sheriff's office during the arrest. The mother learned of the crash a day or two later. The father told the mother he was going to stop drinking but not stop smoking marijuana. At one point, he called her crying because he "couldn't smoke enough pot to get high enough." She asked him to get some help. He got in touch with a sponsor and stopped drinking for a time. He ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated and was sentenced to a conditional discharge. As part of his sentence, he was required to install and utilize an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for one year. The father abstained from alcohol until 2023.

In 2023, the parties were sharing equal placement. The mother learned the father may be drinking again and confronted him. He denied it. Then the father called the mother and admitted he was drinking again. The mother asked the father not to drink while the children were in his care. Two days later, the children observed the father drinking and reported this to the mother. The mother filed a petition in family court soon thereafter.

The father was engaged in substance abuse treatment at Cayuga Addiction Recovery Services (CARS) from fall of 2024 through spring of 2025, including weekly appointments, testing, and group sessions. He claimed that he attended treatment at this time not because he was struggling with alcohol but because he was "basically mandated by the court." He claimed that he was successfully discharged from CARS in the spring of 2025. On April 15, 2025, a Custody and Visitation Order on Consent was entered, requiring the father to "continue with treatment as recommended by CARS," "continue to abstain from using alcohol," and "continue to abstain from using all other illegal substances." The father admits that he began drinking again soon after the order was entered. While he at first testified that since he had agreed to the consent order he could also "unagree" to it, upon further questioning he admitted that by drinking alcohol he was in violation of the consent order which was not only an agreement between the parties but also an order of the Court.

In June and July of 2025, the parties filed their current petitions with the Court. The father admitted on cross-examination at trial that when the mother requested permission to take the children on a vacation that would stretch across two of his Sunday visits, she in fact offered the father numerous make-up visit dates and times, and, because he would not agree, she was ultimately forced to bring an order to show cause to receive permission from the Court for her vacation with the children.

At an appearance with all parties and counsel on August 4, 2025, the Court issued an Interim Order which was later entered on August 6, 2025. Under the Interim Order, the mother was granted temporary sole legal custody and continued primary placement. The father's parenting time was to take place "at a time and place agreed upon by the parties taking into account the children's wishes." The father was forbidden from driving with the children in the car, was ordered to comply with random weekly substance screens through the Family Treatment Court office, and was required to use a blood alcohol content (BAC) tracking device eight hours prior to each visit (as well as every eight hours thereafter for overnight visits).

Taking all the credible testimony and exhibits together, the father did not have any parenting time with the children from August 6, 2025, until October 17, 2025, because the father refused to use the BACtrack device. (Respondent's Exhibits D and E). In a text message to the mother on August 6, 2025, the father declared, "I'm done with the court. I'm not doing any of this bullshit. The kids can see me ANYTIME they want. I'm not going anywhere, but I'm not playing these fucking games anymore." (Respondent's Exhibit E). After sending this text, the father showed up unannounced to the mother's home and waited for the mother and children to return. The children were excited to see him. However, their excitement soon turned to despair when the father told the children that he won't be seeing them anymore because he wasn't going to play the "games" that the judge and the mother were making him play. At the same time, he told the children they were welcome at his house any time. The children were confused and crying. No one understood why he was saying goodbye. This stunt "emotionally wrecked" the children, and the mother was left to deal with the aftermath.

In October 2025, the father resumed his use of the BACtrack device. On October 18, 2025, by the good graces and with the agreement of the mother, his parenting time resumed, including some overnight visits. (Respondent's Exhibit D). However, in November of 2025, the father again stopped using the BACtrack device and, as a result, did not have any parenting time with the children from November 24, 2025, through February 5, 2026. (Respondent's Exhibit D). On December 6, 2025, the father texted the mother, "Are you aware of the court date getting moved?...I don't know what your plan is, but I'm not doing what I've been doing with the testing and the BACTrack [sic] until June. In fact I'm done with it again. This is a fucking joke." (Respondent's Exhibit F). Respondent's H shows that from August 15, 2025, through June 8, 2026, the father had 35 missed drug tests, eight failed drug tests due to the detection of THC, one missed drug test due to reporting too late, and zero passed drug tests. At trial, he rationalized that the random weekly substance testing was merely ordered as a condition of his visitation and that it was not ordered "regardless." Clearly, the father does not view time with his children as his priority.

The father currently participates in a pool league and drinks alcohol while doing so. He testified that he consumes up to three drinks at a time, two or three days per week. He admitted that he drives himself home after drinking. The father maintains that he has had "no issues" with alcohol since his discharge from CARS and resumption of drinking, stating he has a "good understanding" of his "whole history." The father claims he has not used alcohol around the children since 2024. The father denies that he has struggled with any other substances besides alcohol. He estimates that he currently uses marijuana four to five days per week, "occasionally" on the same days that he uses alcohol. He admits that he uses marijuana while the children are in his care, after they are asleep. Aside from his admissions to using alcohol and marijuana, the Court did not find the father to be a credible and accurate reporter of his substance use. He minimizes the amount of alcohol and marijuana he consumes as well as the resultant impact on his life and relationships.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A "party seeking to modify an existing custodial arrangement" must "demonstrate, as a threshold, that 'there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the children' (Matter of Tyrel v. Tyrel, 132 AD3d 1026, 1026 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Gerber v. Gerber, 133 AD3d 1133, 1135 [2015])." Matter of Harrell v. Fox, 137 AD3d 1352, 1354 (3rd Dept. 2016). If the requisite change of circumstances burden has been met, the petitioner must then demonstrate that the "best interests of the child[ren] would be served by modification of that order (Matter of David ZZ. v. Suzanne A., 152 AD3d 880, 881, 58 N.Y.S.3d 711 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Heather U. v. Janice V., 160 AD3d 1149, 1150, 74 N.Y.S.3d 410 [2018] )." Beers v. Beers, 163 AD3d 1197, 1198 (3rd Dept. 2018).

The father has failed to meet his burden of showing a significant change in circumstances since issuance of the April 2025 Custody and Visitation Order on Consent as the father's claim that the parties were "unable to negotiate a workable visitation schedule that allows for additional time" with him was unsupported by the evidence. At all times, the mother has gone above and beyond to offer ample additional parenting time to the father. Any difficulties (such as refusing to accept make-up time to allow for the mother's vacation with the children) were the fault of the father alone.

The mother, however, has met her burden of showing a significant change in circumstances since issuance of the April 2025 order because there was uncontroverted proof (including the father's own admissions at trial) that he began drinking alcohol again soon after the order was entered. This is a significant change in circumstances because the father was ordered to continue to abstain from alcohol in the April 2025 order.

Turning now to whether it would be in the best interests of the children to modify the prior order, "[a]ny court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine 'what is for the best interest of the child, and what will best promote [his or her] welfare and happiness' [internal citations omitted]." Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 (NY 1982). "In determining the best interests of a child, a court must consider various factors, including 'the parents' ability to provide a stable home environment for the child, the child's wishes, the parents' past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent' [internal citations omitted]." Herrera v. Pena-Herrera, 146 AD3d 1034, 1035 (3rd Dept. 2017).

Further, the courts have held that where there is an "acrimonious relationship" and poor communication between the parties, joint custody is inappropriate. See Shearer v. Spisak, 90 AD3d 1346, 1347 (3rd Dept. 2011); Tylaeya C. v. Karl S., 187 AD3d 402 (1st Dept. 2020). In such cases, it is appropriate to award sole custody to the parent who has been the "primary caregiver" to the [children] and to the parent who has "demonstrated a willingness to foster a relationship between the [children] and [the other parent] . . . " Keen v. Stephens, 114 AD3d 1029, 1031 (3rd Dept. 2014); Tylaeya C. v. Karl S., 187 AD3d 402 (1st Dept. 2020). In considering a party's willingness to promote a relationship between the children and the other parent, the court may take into account the party's poor communication with the other parent, "disparaging treatment of the [other parent] as reflected in . . . text messages," and "failure to take responsibility for his [or her] actions." Cameron ZZ. V. Ashton B., 183 AD3d 1076 (3rd Dept. 2020).

Based upon all of the evidence, the Court must grant sole legal custody and continued primary placement to the mother. The mother has always been the primary caregiver to the children, and she is the only parent that has provided a safe, stable, and healthy home environment for them. She has continued to foster the children's relationship with the father despite the very difficult circumstances created by the father's untreated addictions. She even agreed to allow the father to resume visits after two periods of the father not seeing the children for months due to his refusal to use the BACtrack device. Although the mother works very hard to communicate with the father and schedule parenting time for him, the Court finds that there is an "acrimonious relationship" between them such that joint custody is no longer inappropriate. An example of this is the father's refusal to accept the offered make-up time and allow the mother to take the children on vacation, something which would have been in the children's best interests. Another example is the shockingly cruel, manipulative, and alienating behavior the father engaged in on August 6, 2025, when he told the children goodbye because he was no longer going to play the "games" the judge and the mother were making him play. He was willing to cause serious emotional damage to his children to either gain a leg up on the mother or hide the true problem: his addictions. The father alone has created this acrimony through his failure to take responsibility for his own actions. He wants to blame the mother for his situation, but he has only himself to blame.

The Court is aware that the mother is advocating for the father to have alternate weekends, however the Court agrees with the schedule proposed by the AFC (which is the same schedule as in the April 2025 order): a set schedule of Sundays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. plus additional parenting time, including overnights, as the parties can agree taking into consideration the wishes and best interests of the children. The current schedule works well because the mother is so accommodating and supportive of the children's time with the father. The father has not done anything to warrant an increase in his set parenting time. If anything, his actions warrant a decrease in his set parenting time.

Further, the Court has serious concerns about the safety of the children while in the father's care. There is ample support in the record for supervised visits for the father, and that is where the father is headed next if he is found to be in violation of this order. It is imperative that the father utilize the BACtrack device to ensure he is not consuming alcohol while the children are in his care.

The father's modification petition is DENIED. The mother's modification petition is GRANTED. It is hereby:

ORDERED, that the mother shall have sole legal custody and placement of the subject children; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall have parenting time on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father may have additional parenting time, including overnight parenting time, as agreed upon by the parties and under conditions as agreed upon by the parties, taking into consideration the wishes and best interests of the subject children; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall have an additional mid-week parenting time with the subject child E.X. at least once a week at dates and times to be agreed upon by the parties and under conditions as agreed upon by the parties and taking into consideration the wishes and best interests of E.X.; and it is further

ORDERED, that the aforementioned parenting time schedule may be modified as agreed upon by the parties, including for purposes such as reasonable vacation time, camps or extracurricular activities; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall abstain from using alcohol and any other illegal or mind-altering substances (including marijuana/cannabis and cocaine) during his parenting time as well as during the twelve hours prior to any parenting time; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father may attend all school events and activities parents normally attend, provided he is not under the influence of alcohol or any other substances; and it is further

ORDERED, that at the initial exchange of the children, the mother will review the BACtrack and also assess the father's condition for signs of alcohol or other substance use. The mother shall cancel the visit if she observes signs of use; and it is further

ORDERED, the father shall use the BACtrack device and provide reports to the mother both (1) at the onset of every visit; and (2) every eight hours while the children are in his care. The father shall maintain his subscription to the service; and it is further

ORDERED, that should the father fail to provide those reports or should the report show alcohol use, the mother shall retrieve the children and end the visit early; and it is further

ORDERED, that should the mother need to cancel a visit for purposes such as vacation time or other reasons, the mother shall offer the father a choice of alternative make-up visits; and it is further

ORDERED, that in regulating their own behavior, the parties shall observe and follow the following "rights of a child whose parents are separated (adapted from the Parent's Handbook of the New York State Parent Education and Awareness Program — 2016):

1. The right not to be asked to "choose sides" between their parents.

2. The right not to be told any details of the legal proceedings going on between their parents.

3. The right not to be told "bad things" about the other parent's personality or character.

4. The right to privacy when talking to the other parent on the telephone.

5. The right not to be interrogated by one parent about the other parent.

6. The right not to be asked to carry messages between parents.

7. The right not to be asked by one parent to tell the other parent untruths.

8. The right not to be used as a confidant regarding adult matters.

9. The right to express feelings, whatever those feelings may be.

10. The right to choose not to express certain feelings.

11. The right to be protected from parental "warfare."

12. The right not to be made to feel guilty for loving both parents.

Enter: July 1, 2026

Ithaca, New York

Hon. Scott A. Miller

Family Court Judge

FOOTNOTES

1.   E.X. was present outside of the courtroom and met this Judge but did not wish to participate in the hearing.

Scott A. Miller, J.