IN RE: Arwa Hagahmed (2026)

Submitted—June 16, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Elizabeth L. Fassler, J.), dated December 17, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied that branch of the father's petition which was to modify an order of the same court dated January 24, 2022, so as to permit him to travel internationally with the parties' children.

ORDERED that the order dated December 17, 2025, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties, who are divorced, are the parents of two children, born in 2014 and 2018, respectively.  In an order dated January 24, 2022 (hereinafter the January 2022 order), the Family Court directed, inter alia, that the parties would have joint physical custody of the children, with the father exercising parental access every week from 9:00 a.m. on Sunday until 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday.  The January 2022 order further provided that “[n]either parent may travel with the children outside of the United States, except by a subsequent court order upon application by the parent seeking permission to travel.”  In November 2025, the father filed a petition to modify the January 2022 order so as to, among other things, permit him to travel internationally with the children.  Following a hearing, the court, inter alia, denied that branch of the petition.  The father appeals.

“ ‘In order to modify an existing custody or parental access arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Preston v. Hormadaly, 246 AD3d 923, 924, quoting Matter of Felgueiras v. Cabral, 204 AD3d 790, 791;  see Matter of Levy v. Binette, 211 AD3d 840, 841).  “The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Martinez v. Gaddy, 223 AD3d 816, 817 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Samuels v. Pallano, 237 AD3d 833, 833–834).  “Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and visitation depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, deference is accorded to its findings in this regard, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Gangi v. Sanfratello, 157 AD3d 677, 678;  see Matter of Soto v. Katz, 238 AD3d 1161, 1162).

Here, the Family Court's determination denying that branch of the father's petition which was to modify the January 2022 order so as to permit him to travel internationally with the children has a sound and substantial basis in the record.  The parties' testimony indicated that the father had voluntarily reduced his parental access with the children and had not had an overnight visit with them in more than one year.  Further, the father failed to provide details regarding his travel plans for the children.  Finally, the mother testified that the father had previously threatened to abscond with the children, and the father had mentioned traveling with the children to either Egypt or Bahrain, nonsignatories to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, prior to seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom, where his sister lived (see Michael T. v. Rida S., 247 AD3d 1280, 1281–1282;  Matter of Naamye Nyarko B. v. Goodwin Edwin C., 198 AD3d 453).

The father's contention that the Family Court was biased against him is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Perlman v. Kolodny, 236 AD3d 1038, 1043;  Matter of Remsen v. Remsen, 198 AD3d 658, 661).  In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court's bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party (see Matter of Perlman v. Kolodny, 236 AD3d at 1044;  Matter of Goundan v. Goundan, 210 AD3d 1087, 1089).  Here, the father has identified certain comments by the court which “would have been better left unsaid” (Matter of Ahnna N. [Rosa N.], 240 AD3d 964, 968 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), but those comments do not reflect a bias that “unjustly affected the result” of the proceeding (id. [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Ellis v. Wiley, 246 AD3d 1082, 1084).

GENOVESI, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court