Matter of Scheiner v Henig
Appellate Division, Second Department
November 15, 2017
2017 NY Slip Op 08000 | 155 AD3d 874
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Yehudit Henig, Monsey, NY, appellant pro se.
Veronica Young, New City, NY, attorney for the children.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel T. Tanguay-McGuane, J.), dated August 24, 2016. The order, after a hearing, granted the father‘s petition to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement so as to award him residential custody of the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
” ‘Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of Spencer v Killoran, 147 AD3d 862, 863 [2017], quoting Matter of O‘Shea v Parker, 116 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]; see Matter of Bullard v Clark, 154 AD3d 846 [2017]; Weisberger v Weisberger, 154 AD3d 41 [2017]; Matter of Nixon v Ferrone, 153 AD3d 625 [2017]). The best interests of the children are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Nixon v Ferrone, 153 AD3d 625 [2017]; Matter of Perez v Brown, 150 AD3d 1011 [2017]). The factors to be considered in making a determination with respect to the best interests of the children include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the children, the ability of each parent to provide for the children‘s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the children, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the children‘s relationship with the other parent (see Matter of Perez v Brown, 150 AD3d at 1012; Matter of Yearwood v Yearwood, 90 AD3d 771, 773-774 [2011]; Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623 [2010]). In addition to these factors, the court must “consider the stability and continuity afforded by maintaining the present arrangement” (Matter of McDonough v McDonough, 73 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Perez v Brown, 150 AD3d at 1012). ” ‘[I]nasmuch as custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [court‘s] determination should be disturbed only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Bondarev v Bondarev, 152 AD3d 482, 482 [2017], quoting Matter of Bacchi v Clancy, 101 AD3d 993, 993 [2012]).