] Matter of Jacob R. v. Nadine Q. , 34 N.Y.S.3d 729 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered:    July 7, 2016                   521350
    521296
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of JACOB R.,
    Respondent,
    v
    NADINE Q.,
    Appellant.
    (Proceeding No. 1.)
    ________________________________            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    In the Matter of NADINE Q.,
    Appellant,
    v
    JACOB R.,
    Respondent.
    (Proceeding No. 2.)
    (And Other Related Proceedings.)
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   May 25, 2016
    Before:   Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.
    __________
    Lisa A. Natoli, Norwich, for appellant.
    Carol Malz, Oneonta, for respondent.
    Jehed Diamond, Delhi, attorney for the child.
    __________
    -2-                521350
    521296
    Lynch, J.
    Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome
    County (Connerton, J.), entered June 23, 2015, which, among other
    things, granted petitioner's application, in proceeding No. 1
    pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of
    custody, and (2) from an order of said court, entered May 15,
    2015, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner's
    application, in proceeding No. 2 pursuant to Family Ct Act
    article 6, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior
    order of visitation.
    Jacob R. (hereinafter the father) and Nadine Q.
    (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of a daughter (born in
    2006). By order dated June 5, 2013, Family Court continued an
    award of joint legal custody, with primary physical custody
    granted to the father. The mother was accorded parenting time
    from noon on Sunday until 8:00 a.m on Wednesday. Each parent
    maintained a separate household. The father resided with the
    child, his longtime girlfriend and a younger child that the
    father and girlfriend had together. The mother resided with her
    longtime boyfriend and a younger child from their relationship.
    The proceedings at issue herein were prompted by the events
    of November 8, 2014, a Saturday. After the child had been sent
    to her room for acting out, she apologized and presented a
    sexually explicit "stick-figure" drawing of a tall and a small
    person to the father's girlfriend. When the father returned
    home, he contacted the police, who came to the home that evening.
    On Monday morning November 10, 2014, the father commenced a
    proceeding seeking to modify custody due to the arrest of the
    mother's boyfriend on felony sex abuse charges. Family Court
    issued a temporary order awarding exclusive custody to the
    father, with supervised visitation as the parents could agree,
    ordered a child protective investigation pursuant to Family Ct
    Act § 1034, and issued an order of protection for the child
    against the mother's boyfriend. Later that month, the mother
    moved in with the boyfriend's parents, who indicated that the
    child would not be allowed in their home.
    -3-                521350
    521296
    In December 2014, the mother filed a petition for
    "temporary sole custody." After a series of violation petitions
    were filed by both parties, Family Court issued a further
    temporary order in March 2015, providing for specific visitation
    supervised by the father's parents. By order entered May 15,
    2015, Family Court dismissed the various violation petitions, but
    specified that proof as to compliance would be allowed at the
    fact-finding hearing. After a three-day hearing, Family Court
    issued an order entered on June 23, 2015, which, among other
    things, granted the father's modification petition. The mother's
    visitation was reduced to alternate weekends from Friday at 5:30
    p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m., with the overnight portion at the
    home of the paternal grandparents. The mother appeals from both
    the May and June 2015 orders.
    We affirm. A parent seeking to modify an existing custody
    order must "demonstrate[] a change in circumstances that warrants
    an inquiry into the best interests of the child" (Matter of
    Schlegel v Kropf, 132 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2015]). Although Family
    Court did not expressly find a change in circumstances, the court
    did find that the father established that the boyfriend had been
    "indicated" for sexual abuse by the Broome County Department of
    Social Services and further noted that the mother was financially
    unable to secure her own residence. Given our independent
    authority to review the record (see Matter of Rohde v Rohde, 135
    AD3d 1011, 1012-1013 [2016]), we conclude that the indicated
    report concerning sexual abuse of the child in the mother's
    household and the arrest of the mother's boyfriend constituted a
    change in circumstances compelling an inquiry into the best
    interests of the child (see Matter of Christopher B. v Patricia
    B., 75 AD3d 871, 872 [2010]; Matter of Laurie II. v Raymond JJ.,
    68 AD3d 1170, 1171 [2009]). This is all the more so given the
    testimony of the father, his girlfriend and another family friend
    who described negative changes in the child's behavior, including
    physical manifestations of anxiety, on Sunday mornings during
    2014, just prior to starting visitation with the mother (see
    Matter of Terry I. v Barbara H., 69 AD3d 1146, 1147-1148 [2010];
    Matter of Kowatch v Johnson, 68 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2009], lv denied
    14 NY3d 704 [2010]). Moreover, Family Court duly accounted for
    the abrupt change in the mother's living arrangements (see Matter
    -4-                  521350
    521296
    of Christopher T. v Jessica U., 90 AD3d 1092, 1093-1094 [2011]).
    Under the circumstances presented, and the court having conducted
    a Lincoln hearing, we further find that the court's determination
    limiting visitation was in the child's best interests.
    Finally, Family Court has "broad discretion in establishing
    the parameters of the proof at trial" (Matter of Gardner v
    Gardner, 69 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2010]), and we perceive no error in
    Family Court's dismissal of the interim violation petitions or in
    limiting the proof relative to the mother's modification petition
    which, by its terms, pertained to temporary custody (see Matter
    of Wilson v Hendrickson, 88 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2011]).
    Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 521350

Citation Numbers: 141 A.D.3d 772, 34 N.Y.S.3d 729

Judges: Lynch, Peters, McCarthy, Egan, Devine

Filed Date: 7/7/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024