Michael Colin Barrows of Barrows Levy PLLC successfully defended a favorable custody ruling before the Appellate Division, Second Department, securing an affirmance of the trial court’s core determination while obtaining meaningful modifications to the parenting schedule.
The Decision
In the case, the appellate court reviewed a Family Court order that:
- Awarded the mother sole legal and residential custody
- Denied the father’s request for custody
- Established a detailed parental access schedule
After a full hearing at the trial level, the appellate court affirmed the custody determination, holding that it was supported by a “sound and substantial basis in the record.”
At the same time, the court modified key aspects of the father’s parenting time, including:
- Expanding and clarifying summer access (seven weeks)
- Establishing monthly access in Florida
- Revising holiday schedules (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter)
- Standardizing daily FaceTime communication
- Allowing limited make-up parenting time
Why the Court Upheld the Custody Ruling
The appellate court emphasized a fundamental principle in New York family law: custody determinations are entitled to substantial deference when based on live testimony and credibility findings.
Because the Family Court conducted a full hearing, its findings—particularly regarding the parties’ ability to co-parent—were given significant weight.
The record showed:
- The parents’ relationship had deteriorated to the point of ineffective communication
- Joint decision-making was no longer workable
- The mother was the primary day-to-day caregiver
- The child required stability, particularly given interstate living arrangements (New York and Florida)
Based on these factors, the appellate court agreed that awarding sole custody to the mother was in the best interests of the child.
Addressing Allegations of Parental Alienation
The father argued that he should have been awarded custody due to alleged parental alienation.
The appellate court acknowledged that the mother’s conduct at times “verged on parental alienation.”
However, it concluded that the conduct did not rise to a level warranting a change in custody.
This distinction is important: while courts take alienation claims seriously, they must reach a level that materially impacts the child’s best interests before altering custody.
Key Takeaways for Parents
This case highlights several important principles:
- Courts require a change in circumstances to modify custody
- The best interests of the child remain the controlling standard
- Trial courts receive significant deference on appeal
- Appellate courts can still modify parenting schedules even when affirming custody
To read the decision, click here.
