MATTER OF ODDY v. Oddy
| Decision Date | 03 July 2002 |
| Citation | 296 A.D.2d 616,745 N.Y.S.2d 584 |
| Parties | In the Matter of LYNN ODDY, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>GARY ODDY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Petitioner and respondent were married in 1982 and divorced in 1993. Their daughter was born in 1987. In 1996, following a trial, a prior joint custody order was modified to provide, inter alia, that the parties would share physical custody of the child on a weekly basis, with four days of physical custody to petitioner, the mother, and three to respondent, the father. In June 2000, petitioner filed two petitions, one alleging that respondent violated the 1996 modification order and the other seeking, inter alia, sole physical custody. Family Court directed mental health examinations of the parties, home investigations and a report from the child's treating social worker. Additionally, the court conducted an in camera interview of the child, who was 13 years old at the time. Following trial, the court, inter alia, continued joint legal custody, however, awarded physical custody of the child to petitioner and awarded respondent visitation on alternate weekends, alternate holidays and two weeks each summer. Respondent appeals, contending that Family Court abused it discretion by modifying the custodial order in the absence of changed circumstances.[*]
An existing custody arrangement will not be altered absent a showing of changed circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change to ensure the child's best interest (see, Matter of Chittick v Farver, 279 AD2d 673, 675; Matter of Markey v Bederian, 274 AD2d 816, 817; Matter of Van Hoesen v Van Hoesen, 186 AD2d 903, 903). We find that such a change in circumstances has been established herein when considering the breakdown in communication between respondent and the child, which has severely affected his ability to meet her emotional needs, and her strong desire to reside with petitioner.
The evidence revealed that the child's conversations with respondent are poor or nonexistent and that she usually spends her time with respondent at friends' homes or alone in her room. Respondent indicated that his relationship with his daughter had deteriorated in the six-month period preceding the hearing, noting that she often withdrew to her room. Petitioner testified that counseling became necessary because the child experienced depression and would often cry when it was time for her to return to respondent. The child's counselor testified that, based upon her observations of their interaction during joint counseling sessions, respondent, despite his desire to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baalla v. Baalla, 2016–07545
...circumstances warranting modification (see Matter of Shehata v. Shehata, 31 A.D.3d 773, 774, 818 N.Y.S.2d 623 ; Matter of Oddy v. Oddy, 296 A.D.2d 616, 617, 745 N.Y.S.2d 584 )."In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of......
-
In the Matter of Jeannine M. Rivera v. Lasalle
...57 A.D.3d 1131, 1136, 869 N.Y.S.2d 266 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 703, 876 N.Y.S.2d 704, 904 N.E.2d 841 [2009]; Matter of Oddy v. Oddy, 296 A.D.2d 616, 617, 745 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2002] ). Here, Family Court stated that both children “expressed an unequivocal position” during the Lincoln heari......
-
In the Matter of Jennifer G. v. Benjamin H.
...want to keep the original visitation schedule and, given their ages, their wish “is entitled to greater weight” ( Matter of Oddy v. Oddy, 296 A.D.2d 616, 617, 745 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2002] ). [84 A.D.3d 1435] The father contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he committed ......
- Casarotti v. Casarotti