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: Craig Mondschein, respondent, v. Elizabeth Mondschein, appellant.
Argued—October 2, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
Michele L. Bermel, Chappaqua, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered December 20, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify the custody provisions set forth in a stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated April 14, 2011, so as to, inter alia, award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two younger children, with supervised visitation to the mother.
ORDERED that the order entered December 20, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.
A modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody arrangement should be allowed “ ‘only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child's best interests' ” (Matter of Dorsa v. Dorsa, 90 AD3d 1046, 1046, quoting Matter of Nava v. Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186). The best interests of the child must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–172). Since custody determinations “necessarily depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the [Family] [C]ourt's findings. Therefore, its findings should not be set aside unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Diaz v. Garcia, 119 AD3d 682 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Lawlor v. Eder, 106 AD3d 739, 740; Matter of Tori v. Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances requiring a change in custody to protect the best interests of the parties' two younger children is supported by the record, including the hearing testimony and the recommendation of the court-appointed forensic evaluator. Since the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed on appeal.
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2013–11379 (Docket Nos. V–07158–60 /11B, V–16481–83 /11A)
Decided: November 05, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)