You are here: / / Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody

Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody

The Second Department, in affirming Family Court’s denial of a motion to modify a stipulated custody arrangement, noted that priority is given to the parent who was initially awarded custody:

“A modification of an existing 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” … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances … . In this regard, the court should consider whether the alleged changed circumstances indicate that one of the parties is unfit, the nature and quality of the relationships between the child and the parties, and the existence of a prior agreement … .

” Priority in custody disputes should usually be given to the parent who was first awarded custody . . . because this policy assures stability in the child’s life'” … . “Thus, [w]hen . . . there is no indication that a change of custody will result in significantly enhancing the child’s welfare, it is generally considered in the child’s best interests not to disrupt his [or her] life'” … . McCance v De Witt, 2014 NY Slip Op 04175, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REQUIRED BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN IT IS ARGUED A NECESSARY PARTY WAS NOT SUED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ON THAT GROUND; RATHER THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 1001 (B) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “HOLDER (OF THE NOTE)” REQUIREMENTS OF THE UCC WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).
NON-RELATIVE ALLEGED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING A HEARING ON HER CUSTODY PETITION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Mother’s Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Assistance for Child Fatally... Suspended Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Termination-of-Parental-Rights...