MATTER OF DARLA N. v. CHRISTINE N.
| Decision Date | 21 December 2001 |
| Citation | 289 A.D.2d 1012,734 N.Y.S.2d 783 |
| Parties | In the Matter of DARLA N., Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>CHRISTINE N. et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Cattaraugus County Family Court for further proceedings on petition in accordance with the following Memorandum: With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Family Court properly granted without a hearing respondents' motion to dismiss the petition filed by petitioner on April 22, 1999 seeking visitation and custody with her two children. That petition was filed on the same date that the court continued a prior order in a neglect proceeding suspending petitioner's visitation with the children. Although the petition was not denominated one to modify a prior order, the court so treated it without objection. It is well settled that, "where a party seeks to modify a prior order of visitation, he or she bears the burden of demonstrating a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification" (Matter of Gutkaiss v Leahy, 262 AD2d 681, 682). Where, as here, petitioner fails "to make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances," the court is not required to conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition (Matter of Reese v Jones, 279 AD2d 939, 940; see, Matter of Reczko v Reczko, 278 AD2d 876). The court acknowledged that petitioner had overcome the problems that led to the neglect determination but relied on the children's continued aversion to visitation.
The court erred, however, in granting respondents' motion to dismiss the modification petition filed on November 29, 1999 without conducting a hearing. On November 21, 1999, one of petitioner's children wrote petitioner a letter expressing a desire to visit petitioner. The child also referred to actions of respondents that could be construed as attempts to alienate the children from petitioner. Petitioner's counsel further alleged that respondents were interfering with petitioner's telephone access to the children. "[A] change in circumstances may be demonstrated by, inter alia * * * interference with the noncustodial parent's visitation rights and/or telephone access" (Matter of Markey v Bederian, 274 AD2d 816, 817). In addition, "interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent * * * has been said to be so inconsistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubin v. Rubin
...father, and which actually had that effect ( Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 115, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957; cf. Matter of Darla N. v. Christine N., 289 A.D.2d 1012, 1013, 734 N.Y.S.2d 783). However, under the particular facts of this case, a sentence directing the mother's immediate incarceration "......
-
Mathewson v. Sessler
...a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification’ ” of the visitation schedule ( Matter of Darla N. v. Christine N. [Appeal No. 2], 289 A.D.2d 1012, 1012, 734 N.Y.S.2d 783), we note that the mother concedes that an increase in the father's visitation from the original visitation......
-
Avdic v. Avdic
...change in circumstances to warrant a determination concerning the best interests of the child (see Matter of Darla N. v. Christine N. [appeal No. 2], 289 A.D.2d 1012, 1012, 734 N.Y.S.2d 783 ). Nevertheless, although the court's determination that the mother had engaged in parental alienatio......
-
Laureano v. Wagner
...the child from her (see Matter of Ruiz v. Sciallo, 127 A.D.3d 1205, 1206–1207, 7 N.Y.S.3d 511 ; Matter of Darla N. v. Christine N., 289 A.D.2d 1012, 1012–1013, 734 N.Y.S.2d 783 ). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the Family Court should have conducted an in camera interview of t......