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: AARON S. SLADE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. TONYA S. HOSACK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FREDONIA, FOR XANDER K.S.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied her cross petition seeking primary physical custody of the parties' child and continued the existing award of primary physical custody with petitioner father. That arrangement had been in place for over a year prior to the instant proceeding. It is well settled that a prior custody award arrangement “should be changed based only upon countervailing circumstances on consideration of the totality of circumstances” (Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 210-211 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and we conclude that the mother failed to establish the requisite countervailing circumstances to warrant such a change. The child had been involved in early intervention based on cognitive and physical limitations, and he was to be a full-time student in the upcoming academic year. Although the prior custody order specified that the change in schooling could constitute a change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody arrangement, it further specified that the decisive factor would be whether the modification would serve the best interests of the child. We conclude on the record before us that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by continuing primary physical custody with the father (see generally Matter of Green v Mitchell, 266 A.D.2d 884). Finally, contrary to the contention of the mother, the presence of half siblings of the child in her home is not dispositive, although it is a factor to be considered in making custody determinations (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173). Here, however, “both parties have other children, [and thus] an award of custody to either party would necessarily separate the child at issue from some of [his] siblings” (Matter of Brown v. Marr, 23 AD3d 1029, 1030).
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 08-02490
Decided: October 01, 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)