Doroski v. Ashton
| Decision Date | 17 October 2012 |
| Citation | 99 A.D.3d 902,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06951,952 N.Y.S.2d 259 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jeffrey DOROSKI, respondent, v. Nancy ASHTON, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Solomon & Herrera, Levittown, N.Y. (Michael D. Solomon and Susan A. Rubin of counsel), for appellant.
Feldman and Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman and Arza Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Debra A. Brynes, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, L. PRISCILLA HALL and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated December 8, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a prior order of the same court (Lynaugh, J.) dated August 4, 2005, which awarded sole custody of the parties' child to her, with visitation to the father, so as to award the father sole custody, with visitation to her.
ORDERED that the order dated December 8, 2011, is affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant to the petitioner.
Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Strand–O'Shea v. O'Shea, 32 A.D.3d 398, 819 N.Y.S.2d 109). Parental alienation of a child from the other parent is “an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent” ( Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380, 384–385, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213;see Bobinski v. Bobinski, 9 A.D.3d 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 185;Stern v. Stern, 304 A.D.2d 649, 758 N.Y.S.2d 155;Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 122, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957). As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Here, the Family Court's determinations that there had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole custody to the father would be in the child's best interests, have a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, should not be disturbed ( see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East v. Usher E.
...v. Stern, 304 A.D.2d 649, 758 N.Y.S.2d 155;Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 122, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957).” see Doroski v. Ashton, 99 AD3d 902, 952 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2 Dept., 2012] ). As such, the court must negatively view any behavior or actions by a parent that limits access between the children and......
-
Pandis v. Lapas
...as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as a custodial parent’ " ( Matter of Doroski v. Ashton , 99 A.D.3d 902, 903, 952 N.Y.S.2d 259, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle , 61 A.D.2d 380, 384–385, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; see Matter of Vargas v. Gutierrez ,......
-
E.V. v. R.V.
...61 A.D.2d 380, 384–385, 402 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; see Matter of Lawlor v. Eder, 106 A.D.3d 739, 966 N.Y.S.2d 92 ; Matter of Doroski v. Ashton, 99 A.D.3d 902, 952 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of......
- James M. v. Kevin M.
-
GENDER BIAS IN CROSS-ALLEGATION DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-PARENTAL ALIENATION CUSTODY CASES: CAN STATES LEGISLATE THE FIX?
...of a child as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent. ' Doroski v. Ashton, 99 A.D.3d 902 (2d Dept. 2012); Bennett v. Schultz, 110 A.D.3d 792 (2d Dept. 2013); Avdic v. Avdic, 125 A.D.3d 1534 (4th Dept. 2015); Halioris v. Halioris, ......