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: BRUCE L. STEVENSON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DEBORAH K. STEVENSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JACQUELINE M. GRASSO, ESQ., LAW GUARDIAN,
APPELLANT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Family Court erred in granting the petition in which petitioner father sought to modify the existing custodial arrangement by transferring custody of the parties' child from respondent mother to him. The court granted the petition based primarily on its view that the father would foster a meaningful relationship between the child and the mother, while the mother would not do likewise. That was error. We conclude that the father failed to make a sufficient showing of a change in circumstances to warrant modification of the existing custody arrangement (see Matter of Gridley v. Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560; Stacey L.B. v. Kimberly R.L., 12 AD3d 1124, lv denied 4 NY3d 704). A long-term custodial arrangement established by agreement, such as the arrangement herein, should not be modified unless it is demonstrated that “the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit” (Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 211 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and that cannot be said with respect to the custodial parent. In addition, although we are mindful that the hearing court's determination is entitled to great respect (see Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947), we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the court erred in failing to consider the preference of the child, given his age and apparent maturity, to continue to reside with the mother (see Matter of Suzanne T. v. Arthur L.T., 12 Misc.3d 691, affd 30 AD3d 1105). “ ‘While the express wishes of children are not controlling, they are entitled to great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful’ “ (see Matter of O'Connor v. Dyer, 18 AD3d 757, 757). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to disturb the existing custodial arrangement.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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: CAF 09-01175
Decided: February 11, 2010
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)