CURRY, TORRENCE P. v. REESE, LATOYA D.CURRY, TORRENCE P. v. REESE, LATOYA D.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M. LoVallo, J.), entered October 3, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to
Here, the evidence in the record establishes that the Erie County Department of Social Services filed a neglect petition against the mother, and that the court entered a finding of neglect against the mother based on the conditions in her home. “[T]he adjudication of neglect constituted a change in circumstances that warranted a determination whether a modification of the custody arrangement set forth in the [prior] joint custody order was in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Christy S. v Phonesavanh S., 108 AD3d 1207, 1208 [2013]; see Matter of Ze’Nya G. [Nina W.], 126 AD3d 566, 566 [2015];
We reject the mother’s further contention that the child’s best interests are not served by awarding sole custody of the child to the father. Although “[t]his Court has held that sibling relationships should not be disrupted ‘unless there is some overwhelming need to do so’ ” (White v White, 209 AD2d 949, 950 [1994], lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924 [1995]; see Salerno v Salerno, 273 AD2d 818, 819 [2000]), “this rule is not absolute and may be overcome where, as the record here shows, the best interest[s] of each child lie[ ] with a different parent” (Matter of Delafrange v Delafrange, 24 AD3d 1044, 1046 [2005], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the court properly concluded that it is in the child’s best interests that she be separated from her siblings (see Matter of Lowe v O’Brien, 81 AD3d 1093, 1095 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 713 [2011]; Matter of Lightbody v Lightbody, 42 AD3d 537, 538 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1017 [2008]; Matter of Seymour v Seymour, 267 AD2d 1053, 1053 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 761 [2000]).
The mother further contends that the court was biased against her. “A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself” (Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]; see Matter of Ashlyn Q. [Talia R.], 130 AD3d 1166, 1169 [2015]), and the mother failed to do so here. Therefore, her contention is not preserved for our review. In any event, “[t]he record does not establish that the court was biased or prejudiced against” the mother (Matter of Rasyn W., 270 AD2d 938, 938 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 766 [2000]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and Curran, JJ.