Bliss, on Behalf of Ach v. Ach
| Decision Date | 23 June 1982 |
| Citation | 56 N.Y.2d 995,439 N.E.2d 349,453 N.Y.S.2d 633 |
| Parties | , 439 N.E.2d 349 Betsy L. BLISS, on Behalf of Christian A. B. ACH, Respondent, v. Roger W. ACH, II, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division which modified a judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, awarding primary custody of the parties' child to petitioner, should be affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order of the Appellate Division, 86 A.D.2d 575, 446 N.Y.S.2d 305, which, inter alia, unanimously affirmed an order of Supreme Court, New York County, denying respondent's motion for a new trial should be dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal as of right lies from this order.
In this child custody proceeding, the trial court found that, although both parents are fit to raise the child, the welfare of the child would best be served by placing primary custody in the petitioner mother. Very important in this connection was the court's determination that if the father were to receive primary custody, he would endeavor to fully integrate the child into his separate family, significantly downplaying the role of the child's natural mother, jeopardizing both the child's sense of identity and his relationship with his natural mother. A similar undesirable design on the part of the mother was not perceived. In seeking to effectuate the "first and paramount concern" of the best interests of the child (Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Obey v Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 375 N.Y.S.2d 91, 337 N.E.2d 601), the trial court properly considered the effect that an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent. The trial court's factual findings on this issue, as affirmed by the Appellate Division, find support in the record, and therefore are not subject to further review by this court (Matter of Infant D., 34 N.Y.2d 806, 359 N.Y.S.2d 43, 316 N.E.2d 330; see, generally, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 453-455).
Although the trial court awarded primary custody to the mother, it also provided for joint custody in the two parents, based upon a finding that the parties were capable of cooperating to jointly raise the child and to provide for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Young
...might have on the child's relationship with the other parent" is also a proper and relevant consideration (Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 439 N.E.2d 349). "[T]he existence or absence of any one factor cannot be determinative on appellate review since the court is to con......
-
East v. Usher E.
...77 AD3d 962, 909 N.Y.S.2d 155 [2 Dept., 2010]; Tori v. Tori, 67 AD3d 1021, 890 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2 Dept., 2009]; Matter of Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998, 453 NYS3d 633 [1982] ). The court recognizes that interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by the custo......
-
Rochel H. v. Joel H.
...962, 909 N.Y.S.2d 155 [2 Dept., 2010] ; see also Tori v. Tori, 67 AD3d 1021, 890 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2 Dept., 2009] ; Matter of Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633 [1982] ). The Court recognizes that an "interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by......
-
G.D. v. D.D.
...Matter of Heintz v. Heintz 275 A.D.2d 971, 713 N.Y.S.2d 709 (4th Dept.2000) ], who are unwilling to cooperate [Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 439 N.E.2d 349 (1982) ; Amari v. Molloy, 293 A.D.2d 431, 739 N.Y.S.2d 626 (2nd Dept.2002) ], and who are unwilling or unable to set a......