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.
IN RE: Latisha KEYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mister Wahabbi HALTON and Vivian Halton, Respondents-Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, petitioner mother appeals from an order that denied and dismissed her petitions seeking to modify a prior order of custody by granting her visitation with the child who is the subject of this proceeding. We affirm. “A party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement has the ‘burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the child warranted a [modification of the prior order]’ ” (Matter of Cole v Nofri, 107 AD3d 1510, 1511 [4th Dept 2013], appeal dismissed 22 NY3d 1083 [2014]). Here, the mother failed to meet that burden. The prior order of custody was entered in 2017 upon the mother's default and at a time when a petition to terminate her parental rights on the ground of abandonment was pending. In the years since the prior order of custody was entered, the mother has had essentially no contact with the child and has made no effort to have such contact with the child. The mother's unsubstantiated testimony was insufficient to demonstrate that she completed a parenting class and a mental health evaluation (see Matter of Paul P. v Tonisha J., 149 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2017]). Moreover, we conclude under the facts of this case that those factors would not constitute a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the child warranted a modification of the prior order.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 695
Decided: September 29, 2023
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)