Turkashwand v. Brock, 189 A.D.3d 1428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) was a case from Nassau County, New York, which involved modifications to custody and parental access. The case addresses an appeal by the mother against several Family Court orders concerning her custodial rights and the allegations against the father.
To modify an existing custody order, a court must find that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the last order was issued. This standard ensures that the court only revisits custody arrangements when necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The rationale behind requiring a change in circumstances is to provide stability and continuity for the child, avoiding frequent and potentially disruptive changes in their living situation.
In Turkashwand v. Brock, there were allegations of parental alienation. Parental alienation can be a compelling reason for modifying custody because it directly impacts the child’s well-being and their relationship with both parents. Parental alienation involves one parent’s actions that deliberately undermine the child’s relationship with the other parent. This can include speaking negatively about the other parent to the child, limiting contact, or otherwise manipulating the child’s perceptions, resulting in estrangement from the alienated parent.
When evidence of parental alienation is presented, courts take it seriously because of its harmful effects on the child’s psychological and emotional health. If the court determines that parental alienation has occurred and is likely to continue, it may consider this a significant change in circumstances. Such findings can justify a modification of custody to protect the child’s best interests, often resulting in the alienating parent having reduced custodial rights to prevent further negative influence on the child
Background Facts
In August 2019, the Family Court of Nassau County handed down several critical decisions affecting the custody of a child born in September 2009. These proceedings began when the father filed a petition to modify an existing custody order from 2016, which had granted joint legal custody to both parents, with the father having residential custody. The father’s petition alleged that the mother had failed to adhere to the set parental access provisions by not returning the child as scheduled, engaged in alienating behavior towards him, and made unfounded complaints against him to Child Protective Services and law enforcement.
Following a detailed hearing, the court decided to grant the father’s petition, awarding him sole legal and residential custody of their child. The decision also included a revised schedule for the mother’s parental access. Dissatisfied with these changes, the mother appealed the decision, arguing against the modification of custody and access provisions. The appeal brought forth issues concerning the admission of evidence and the overall decision-making process by the Family Court. In response, the appellate court reviewed the case, focusing on the legality of the appeal and the soundness of the Family Court’s decisions, leading to a corrected decision issued on November 22, 2019.
Issue
Whether there had been a change in circumstances that justified modifying the original custody and parental access orders to protect the best interests of the child.
Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court’s decision to award the father sole legal and residential custody of the child.
Rationale
The Family Court’s decision to award sole custody to the father and modify the mother’s parental access was based on substantial evidence demonstrating a significant change in circumstances. The evidence indicated that the mother consistently violated the parental access terms, engaged in actions that alienated the child from the father, and made false accusations that involved the authorities. These actions undermined the stability and welfare of the child, warranting a modification to ensure the child’s best interests.
The appellate court supported the Family Court’s findings, emphasizing that custody determinations hinge on the totality of circumstances that affect the child’s well-being. The appellate court noted the lower court’s ability to assess the credibility and behavior of both parents directly, affirming that its decision had a sound basis in the record.
Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the mother’s argument for a forensic evaluation before modifying custody. It was noted that she did not request such an evaluation during the proceedings, and the court deemed it unnecessary for making its determination.
Conclusion
If you are involved in a custody modification matter, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our experienced New York child custody lawyers can provide the necessary legal support and representation to navigate complex family law issues effectively. We understand the nuances of such cases and can ensure that your rights and the best interests of your children are protected throughout the legal process.