Summary
This Appellate Division decision addresses a father's appeal from a Family Court order denying his petition to enforce a custody stipulation and granting the mother's petition to modify custody to sole legal and physical custody. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning the parties' son as academic because he had reached the age of majority. Regarding the daughter, the court affirmed the Family Court's award of sole custody to the mother, finding a sufficient change in circumstances and concluding that mandated visitation would be harmful given the daughter's mature opposition and strained relationship with her father.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal concerning the parties' son is moot because the son is over 18 and no longer subject to a custody order.
- Whether the Family Court erred in modifying the daughter’s custody without a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances and best‑interest analysis.
Holdings
- The appeal as to the son is dismissed as academic because a child over 18 is not subject to Family Court custody jurisdiction.
- The Family Court’s modification is affirmed because there was a sufficient change in circumstances and the best‑interest of the child standard was met.
Key quotations
“Since custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament and sincerity of the parties, the court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (at 1)
Factual background
Melvin Shepherd and Aurora Mirukaj divorced, agreeing to joint legal and physical custody of their son (born 2006) and daughter (born 2010) with the children residing primarily with the father. By September 2018 the son’s relationship with the father had broken down, and the father filed a petition to enforce the custody provisions. In April 2019 the mother filed a petition to modify custody, seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children. The Family Court denied the father's petition and granted the mother's petition, awarding the mother sole custody of the daughter and denying the father any parental access.
Procedural history
The parties divorced and entered a joint‑custody stipulation (August 2017) with a supplemental parenting schedule (December 2017). By 2018 the father‑child relationship deteriorated; the father sought enforcement of the stipulation and the mother sought sole custody. The Family Court denied enforcement and granted sole custody to the mother. The father appealed.