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: JUSTIN E. KIEFFER, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. DELEMA DEFRAIN, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RUTHANNE G. SANCHEZ, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WATERTOWN.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the tenth ordering paragraph and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order entered on stipulation of the parties by awarding petitioner father primary physical residence of the parties' child. Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that Family Court properly determined that the father met his burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether a change of custody is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Murphy v. Wells, 103 AD3d 1092, 1093, lv denied 21 NY3d 854; Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 A.D.2d 816, 817–818; Matter of Brewer v. Whitney, 245 A.D.2d 842, 843). Contrary to the mother's further contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it is in the child's best interests to award the father primary physical residence of the child and to award visitation with the mother (see Matter of Tuttle v. Tuttle, 137 AD3d 1725, 1726; see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–174). In addition, we reject the mother's contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Nicholson v. Nicholson, 140 AD3d 1689, 1690, lv. denied 28 NY3d 903; Matter of Brown v. Gandy, 125 AD3d 1389, 1390).
We agree with the mother, however, that the court erred in sua sponte ordering that the father shall have the right to relocate the residence of the child anywhere in the continental United States with 30 days' notice to the mother inasmuch as that relief was not requested by the parties or the Attorney for the Child (see Matter of Irons v. Schneller, 258 A.D.2d 652, 653; see generally Matter of Majuk v Carbone, 129 AD3d 1485, 1485–1486). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
Frances E. Cafarell
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 16–00027
Decided: February 10, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)