IN RE: Stacey Schneider (2026)

Argued—May 21, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Rosamaria Abbate, J.), dated September 27, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modify the parental access provisions of a prior order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Anna Anzalone, J.), dated April 13, 2015, and dismissed the father's petition alleging, inter alia, that the mother violated the parental access provisions of the order dated April 13, 2015.

ORDERED that the order dated September 27, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties are the parents of one child, born in 2012.  In January 2023, the mother filed a modification petition in the Family Court, Suffolk County, to modify a prior order of custody dated April 13, 2015 (hereinafter the April 2015 order), which granted the mother residential custody of the parties' child and joint legal custody of the child with the father.  Pursuant to the April 2015 order, the father was awarded parental access every other weekend from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., with pick-ups and drop-offs to occur in Bellmore.  Thereafter, the father filed a violation petition alleging, inter alia, that the mother failed to provide him parental access with the child.  The mother opposed the father's violation petition.  The attorney for the child supported the mother's modification petition.

In an order dated September 27, 2024, after a hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother's petition to modify the April 2015 order by awarding parental access to the father every other weekend from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m., and, during summer camp for the child, from Friday at 7:30 p.m. to Sunday at 7:30 p.m. The court also dismissed the father's violation petition.  The father appeals.

“An existing parental access order may be modified only upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change in circumstances and modification is required” (Matter of Vitucci v. Radparvar, 173 AD3d 1191, 1192 [brackets and internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Palmieri v. Glover, 247 AD3d 905, 907 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Contrary to the father's contention, his relocation to New Jersey and the mother's relocation to a town different than the one in which she had resided when the April 2015 order was entered constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modifying the April 2015 order (see Matter of Vitucci v. Radparvar, 173 AD3d at 1193).  Here, the Family Court's modification of the April 2015 order, to accommodate the mother's work schedule and the child's summer camp schedule, was in the child's best interests and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see id.).

“To establish a willful violation of a Family Court order and punish a party for civil contempt, the petitioner has the burden of proving his or her case by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Devlin v. Eriksson, 247 AD3d 890, 890 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Davis v. Romao, 238 AD3d 742, 744).  “The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the accused party violated a clear and unequivocal court order which the accused party knew was in effect, thereby prejudicing the petitioner's rights” (Matter of Devlin v. Eriksson, 247 AD3d at 890 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Davis v. Romao, 238 AD3d at 744).

Here, the father adduced insufficient evidence that the mother denied his requests for parental access or otherwise prevented him from having parental access.  Under the circumstances presented, as the attorney for the child correctly contends, the Family Court properly determined that the father failed to demonstrate that the mother willfully violated the provisions of the April 2015 order (see Matter of Davis v. Romao, 238 AD3d at 744;  Matter of Unger v. Koren Ha, 234 AD3d 783, 785).

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court