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: SHELLY DORMIO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. PATRICK MAHONEY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAUL SKAVINA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROME, FOR JACOB M.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing her petition, following a hearing, that sought to modify a prior custody order with respect to the parties' child. The prior order was entered following a lengthy hearing and, inter alia, awarded joint custody of the child to the parties, with the child to reside with each parent during alternate weeks. Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court properly dismissed her petition. A party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child (Matter of Di Fiore v. Scott, 2 AD3d 1417, 1417; see Matter of Chrysler v. Fabian, 66 AD3d 1446, lv denied 13 NY3d 715). An existing custody arrangement is not subject to modification merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements in moral or psychological adjustment, at least so long as [a] custodial parent has not been shown to be unfit, or perhaps less fit, to continue as [a] proper custodian (Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 770; see Di Fiore, 2 AD3d 1417). We conclude that the court's determination dismissing the petition has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we therefore will not disturb it (see Matter of Horn v. Horn, 74 AD3d 1848).
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 09-00683
Decided: October 08, 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)