Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of JOHN P.R., Petitioner-Respondent, v. TRACY A.R., Respondent-Appellant.
Respondent appeals from an order modifying the parties' existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties' children to petitioner and supervised visitation to respondent. Respondent contends on appeal only that she is entitled to joint custody with physical residence to petitioner and additional visitation. Although the Referee erred in failing to address the issue whether petitioner made the requisite showing of a change in circumstances “warranting a real need for change in order to insure the continued best interests of the children” (Matter of Morgan v. Becker, 245 A.D.2d 889, 890, 666 N.Y.S.2d 820), we make our own finding that petitioner established the requisite change in circumstances (cf. Marcantonio v. Marcantonio, 307 A.D.2d 740, 741-742, 761 N.Y.S.2d 420). The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that respondent was abusing drugs and alcohol from 1998 to 2000 and was recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Indeed, respondent testified at the hearing that she was not in a position to take custody of the children. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to establish the requisite change in circumstances. We further conclude that, contrary to respondent's contention, the award of sole custody to petitioner is in the children's best interests (see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172-174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). “The determination of the hearing court, which is in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses, must be accorded great weight ․ [and, here, the Referee] carefully weighed and considered the appropriate factors in determining that [sole] custody to [petitioner] was in the children's best interests” (Matter of Paul C. v. Tracy C., 209 A.D.2d 955, 956, 622 N.Y.S.2d 159; see generally Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 488 N.Y.S.2d 637, 477 N.E.2d 1091).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 30, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)