interests analysis in New York

2023The pertinent factors in conducting a best interests analysis include "each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child[ren] and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on [*2]the quantity and quality of the child[ren]'s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child[ren]'s [lives] may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child[ren] through suitab

2022We note at the outset that, "[i]nasmuch as this case involves an initial custody determination, 'it cannot properly be characterized as a relocation case to which the application of the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) need be strictly applied' " ( Forrestel v Forrestel , 125 AD3d 1299, 1299 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 904 [2015]). " 'Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's [proposed] relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination' " ( id . at 1299-1300). "[

2025Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's [proposed] relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination . . . [T]he relevant issue is whether it is in the best interests of the child[ren] to reside primarily with the mother or the father" ( Matter of Hochreiter v Williams , 201 AD3d 1303 , 1303-1304 [4th Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Saperston v Holdaway , 93 AD3d 1271, 1272 [4th Dept 2012], appeals dismissed 19 NY3d 887 [2012], 20 NY3d 1052 [2013]; see generally Eschbach , 56 NY2d at

2025We reject the father's contention that the court's best interests analysis "placed undue emphasis on [his] purported shortcomings." In making its determination, the court was required to consider all factors that could impact the best interests of the child ( see Matter of K.C. v N.C. , 215 AD3d 1238 , 1240 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 907 [2023]; see generally Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Matter of Braga v Bell , 151 AD3d 1924, 1925 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]), and the court properly considered the father's actions and determined that his inability t

2018"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that [would then] warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child[ren's] continued best interests" ( Matter of Menhennett v Bixby , 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [*2][2015] [citations omitted]).

2018"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court [*2]undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child's continued best interests" ( Matter of Menhennett v Bixby , 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2015] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Fiacco v Fiacco , 158 AD3d 1011 , 1012 [2018]).

2017“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” (Matter of Menhennett v Bixby, 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2015]; accord Matter of Ryan v Lewis, 135 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2016]; see Matter of Normile v Stalker, 140 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2016]).

2017“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” (Matter of Menhennett v Bixby, 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2015]; accord Matter of Ryan v Lewis, 135 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2016]; see Matter of Normile v Stalker, 140 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2016]).

2025Accordingly, we conclude that the record supports Family Court's finding of a change in circumstances ( see Matter of Ronald EE. v Crystal F. , 180 AD3d 1160, 1161 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 908 [2020]). [FN3] After finding that a change in circumstances had occurred since the entry of the prior order, Family Court proceeded to a best interests analysis that, contrary to the father's contention, appropriately weighed "the past performance and relative fitness of the parents, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the children and the other parent, their fidelity to

2024"Factors to be considered in a best interests analysis include maintaining stability in the child's life, the quality of the respective home environments, the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in place and each party's past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for and guide the child's intellectual and emotional development" ( Matter of Daniel XX. v Heather WW. , 180 AD3d 1166 , 1166 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW. , 186 AD3d 946, 948 [3d Dept 2020]).

2015A best interests analysis considers numerous factors, “ ‘including the continuity and stability of the existing custody arrangement, the quality of the child’s home environment and that of the [party] seeking custody, the ability of each [party] to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each [party] to provide for the child, and the individual needs and expressed desires of the child’ ” (Matter of Michael P. v Judi P., 49 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2008]; see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210 [1992]).

2015A best interests analysis considers numerous factors, “ ‘including the continuity and stability of the existing custody arrangement, the quality of the child’s home environment and that of the [party] seeking custody, the ability of each [party] to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each [party] to provide for the child, and the individual needs and expressed desires of the child’ ” (Matter of Michael P. v Judi P., 49 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2008]; see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210 [1992]).

2025Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's [proposed] relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination . . . [T]he relevant issue is whether it is in the best interests of the child[ren] to reside primarily with the mother or the father" ( Matter of Hochreiter v Williams , 201 AD3d 1303 , 1303-1304 [4th Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Saperston v Holdaway , 93 AD3d 1271, 1272 [4th Dept 2012], appeals dismissed 19 NY3d 887 [2012], 20 NY3d 1052 [2013]; see generally Eschbach , 56 NY2d at

2022We note at the outset that, "[i]nasmuch as this case involves an initial custody determination, 'it cannot properly be characterized as a relocation case to which the application of the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) need be strictly applied' " ( Forrestel v Forrestel , 125 AD3d 1299, 1299 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 904 [2015]). " 'Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's [proposed] relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination' " ( id . at 1299-1300). "[

2024In that regard, we discern no basis to disturb Family Court's determination that, at the time of the fact-finding hearing, the best interests of the children were served by awarding the mother primary physical custody. [FN3] "In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child[ren]'s li[ves], each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child[ren] and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative fitness and ability

2024The father appeals. [FN2] "When rendering an initial custody determination, the paramount consideration for Family Court is determining the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Christopher L. v Paula L. , 212 AD3d 1060, 1061 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Brandon QQ. v Shelby QQ. , 216 AD3d 1212, 1213 [3d Dept 2023]). " 'In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's wi

2018"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child's continued best interests" ( Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH. , 135 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2018Thus, based on the parties' unwillingness or inability to set aside their differences to make joint [*2]decisions for the good of the child, the court correctly found a change in circumstances warranting a best interests analysis ( see Matter of LaBaff v Dennis , 160 AD3d 1096 , 1096-1097 [2018]; Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH. , 135 AD3d at 1007 ; Matter of Deyo v Bagnato , 107 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 851 [2013]).

2018We further agree with Family Court that the mother did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating that there had been a change in circumstances since entry of the June 2015 stipulation and order to warrant the undertaking of a best interests analysis ( see Matter of Crystal F. v Ian G. , 145 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2016]; Matter of Menhennett v Bixby , 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2015]).

2017“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” (Matter of Crystal F. v Ian G., 145 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2016“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” (Matter of Menhennett v Bixby, 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [2015] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Gerber v Gerber, 133 AD3d 1133, 1136 [2015] ). 1 Evidence that the parties’ relations

2016The foregoing demonstrates a change in circumstances since the entry of the divorce judgment that rendered joint custody inappropriate and triggered a best interests inquiry (see Matter of Zahuranec v Zahuranec, 132 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2015]; Heather B. v Daniel B., 125 AD3d 1157, 1159-1160 [2015]; Matter of Sherwood v Barrows, 124 AD3d 940, 941 [2015]).

2018According due deference to the credibility assessments of Family Court, and "[m]indful that courts are 'powerless to supplant parents except for grievous cause or necessity,'" we perceive the foregoing to constitute a sound and substantial basis in the record for the finding that the grandmother did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances so as to permit a best interests analysis ( Matter of Burton v Barrett , 104 AD3d 1084 , 1085 [2013], quoting Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys , 40 NY2d 543, 546 [1976]; see Matter of Tolbert v Scott , 42 AD3d 548, 549 [2007]).

2015Contrary to respondent’s contention, we conclude that she failed to meet her burden of establishing that the father relinquished his superior right to custody because of “surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]; see Matter of Jody H. v Lynn M., 43 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2007]). “[I]t therefore was unnecessary for the court to engage in a best interests analysis before awarding custody of the children] to him” (Jody H., 43 AD3d at 1318 ).

2026Because facts material to the best interests analysis and the circumstances surrounding such facts remain in dispute, a hearing is required ( see S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 564 ; Matter of Liang v O'Brien , 216 AD3d at 1102 ).

2020"Where facts material to a best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required" ( Matter of Jeanette V. [Marina L.] , 152 AD3d at 707 ; see S.L. v. J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 564 ).

2021"Although a court may consider the effect of a parent's relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination" ( Saperston , 93 AD3d at 1272 ; see Matter of Torkildsen v Torkildsen , 72 AD3d 1405, 1406 [3d Dept 2010]).

2014“Although a court may consider the effect of a parent’s relocation as part of a best interests analysis, relocation is but one factor among many in its custody determination” (Saperston, 93 AD3d at 1272 ; see Matter of Torkildsen v Torkildsen, 72 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2010]).

2026Although the father points out that the mother's modification petition did not contain these allegations, Family Court, noting that the petition had been filed pro se, providently exercised its discretion in granting a motion by the attorney for the child to conform the pleading to the proof elicited at trial (<i>see</i> CPLR 3025 [c]; <i>Matter of Oksoon K. v Young K.</i>, 115 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2014], <i>lv denied</i> 24 NY3d 902 [2014]).</p> <p>Turning to the best interests analysis, "[d]etermining the child's best interests requires consideration <span>[*2]</span>of, among other facto

2026"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody and parenting time order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" (<i>Matter of Jacob L. v Heather L.</i>, 228 AD3d 1191 , 1192-1193 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; <i>see Matter of Mary N. v Scott M.</i>, 218 AD3d 890, 891 [3d Dept 2023]).FN2 "[A] custody arrangement consented to by the parties is afforded less weight than one ordered by a court after a full hearing" (<i>Heather B. v Daniel B.</

2023"In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative [*2]fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development and overall well-being" ( Matter of Christopher L. v Paula L. , 212 AD3d 1060, 1061 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Brett

2023"In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative [*2]fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development and overall well-being" ( Matter of Christopher L. v Paula L. , 212 AD3d 1060, 1061 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Brett

2022The mother appeals. [FN1] As the party seeking to modify a prior visitation order, the father bore "the initial burden of showing that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant Family Court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance" ( Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2016]; see Matter of Alan U. v Mandy V. , 146 AD3d 1186, 1187 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Sparbanie v Redder , 130 AD3d 1172, 1172 [3d Dept 2015).

2017As the party seeking modification, it was the father’s burden to first demonstrate a change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order “to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance” (Matter of David J. v Leeann K., 140 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Merwin v Merwin, 138 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2016]).

2022The mother appeals. [FN1] As the party seeking to modify a prior visitation order, the father bore "the initial burden of showing that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant Family Court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance" ( Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2016]; see Matter of Alan U. v Mandy V. , 146 AD3d 1186, 1187 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Sparbanie v Redder , 130 AD3d 1172, 1172 [3d Dept 2015).

2018The mother, as the parent seeking modification of a prior order of visitation, has the "burden to first demonstrate a change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance" ( Matter of Alan U. v Mandy V. , 146 AD3d 1186, 1187 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Alexis EE. [Nadia EE.—Kenneth EE.] , 153 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2017]).

2022The mother appeals. [FN1] As the party seeking to modify a prior visitation order, the father bore "the initial burden of showing that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant Family Court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance" ( Matter of Merwin v Merwin , 138 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2016]; see Matter of Alan U. v Mandy V. , 146 AD3d 1186, 1187 [3d Dept 2017]; Matter of Sparbanie v Redder , 130 AD3d 1172, 1172 [3d Dept 2015).

2017“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody and visitation order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” (Matter of Lynn TT. v Joseph O., 143 AD3d 1089, 1091 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Merwin v Merwin, 138 AD3d 1193,

2021Although Family Court failed to make an express finding that a change in circumstances occurred, its decision is replete with findings that the parties' relationship had deteriorated to such a point that joint custody was no longer feasible ( see Matter of Gerber v Gerber , 133 AD3d 1133 , 1136 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 902 [2016]; Matter of Sonley v Sonley , 115 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2014]).

2015Here, there is no question that the parties’ relationship has deteriorated to the point where they no longer are able to work together in a cooperative fashion for the sake of their child’s welfare, and the case law makes clear that discord of this magnitude constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a best interests inquiry (see Matter of Paul A. v Shaundell LL., 117 AD3d 1346, 1348 [2014], lv dismissed and denied 24 NY3d 937 [2014]; Matter of Sonley v Sonley, 115 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2014]; Matter of Virginia C. v Donald C., 114 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2014]).

2016Family Court found that joint custody was not possible due to “[t]he [m] other’s systematic and devious conduct to alienate the child from the [f]ather, spanning more than two years,” and that she “has shown no regard for what the effects of her behavior may have on the child.” The finding that a joint custody arrangement was no longer feasible is a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the court to proceed to a best interests analysis (see Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH., 135 AD3d at 1007; Matter of Matthew K. v Beth K., 130 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2015]; Matter of Greene v Robarge, 104

2016Family Court found that joint custody was not possible due to “[t]he [m] other’s systematic and devious conduct to alienate the child from the [f]ather, spanning more than two years,” and that she “has shown no regard for what the effects of her behavior may have on the child.” The finding that a joint custody arrangement was no longer feasible is a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the court to proceed to a best interests analysis (see Matter of Colleen GG. v Richard HH., 135 AD3d at 1007; Matter of Matthew K. v Beth K., 130 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2015]; Matter of Greene v Robarge, 104

2024The party seeking to modify an existing custody order must demonstrate a change in circumstances that reflects a genuine need for the modification so as to ensure the best interests of the child and, where this threshold is met, court then proceeds to the best interests analysis ( Trimble v. Trimble , 125 AD3d 1153 [3d Dept 2015]).

2024The party seeking to modify an existing custody order must demonstrate a change in circumstances that reflects a genuine need for the modification so as to ensure the best interests of the child and, where this threshold is met, court then proceeds to the best interests analysis ( Trimble v. Trimble , 125 AD3d 1153 [3d Dept 2015]).

2021"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" ( Matter of Emmanuel SS. v Thera SS. , 152 AD3d 900, 901 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]; see Matter of Charles AA. v Annie BB. , 157 AD3d 1037 , 1038 [2018]).

2018The party seeking to modify an existing custody order is required to "demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof . . . to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" ( Matter of Emmanuel SS. v Thera SS. , 152 AD3d 900, 901 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 30 NY3d 905 [2017]; see Matter of Gerber v Gerber , 141 AD3d 901, 902 [2016]).

2026We are therefore satisfied that Family Court's order continuing joint physical custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record (<i>see Matter of Sheena PP. v Edward QQ.</i>, 238 AD3d at 1420; <i>Matter of Joseph E. v Crystal G.</i>, 233 AD3d at 1286; <i>Matter of Paluba v Paluba</i>, 152 AD3d 887, 889 [3d Dept 2017]; <i>Matter of Bailey v Blair</i>, 127 AD3d 1274, 1277 [3d Dept 2015]).</p> <p>Lastly, as correctly highlighted by the appellate attorney for the child, we remind Family Court of its "paramount obligation" to protect a child's confidentiality in the context of a <i>Lincoln <

2019Inasmuch as Family Court is in a superior position to evaluate witness credibility, we defer to its factual findings and only assess whether its determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see [*2]Matter of Lorimer v Lorimer , 167 AD3d at 1264; Matter of Shirreece AA. v Matthew BB. , 166 AD3d at 1421; Matter of Paluba v Paluba , 152 AD3d 887, 889 [2017]).

2026"In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development and overall well-being" ( Matter of Jahari BB. v Zada CC. , 232 AD3d 1142 , 1144 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Mary AA. v L

2022"In conducting a best interests analysis, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development and overall well-being" ( Matter of Nicole V. v Jordan U. , 192 AD3d at 1355-1356 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Mary AA. v Lonnie BB. , 20

2026"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody and parenting time order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" (<i>Matter of Jacob L. v Heather L.</i>, 228 AD3d 1191 , 1192-1193 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; <i>see Matter of Mary N. v Scott M.</i>, 218 AD3d 890, 891 [3d Dept 2023]).FN2 "[A] custody arrangement consented to by the parties is afforded less weight than one ordered by a court after a full hearing" (<i>Heather B. v Daniel B.</

2026The mother, "as the parent seeking modification of a prior custody order, bore the initial burden of demonstrating that a change in circumstances ha[d] occurred since the entry thereof to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis" ( Matter of Alexander Y. v Jennifer Z. , 233 AD3d 1402 , 1403 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Ricky SS. v Christine SS. , 241 AD3d 1009 , 1011 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Shayne FF. v Julie GG. , 221 AD3d 1202, 1203 [3d Dept 2023]).