| Matter of Beane v Curtis |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08161 [112 AD3d 1005] |
| December 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Brian F. Beane, Respondent, v KathyCurtis, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] Tracy L. Pugliese, Clinton, for respondent. Mark A. Schaeber, Liverpool, attorney for the child.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Madison County(DiStefano, J.), entered September 20, 2012, which, among other things, dismissedrespondent's application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, formodification of a prior order of custody.
The parties are the parents of one child (born in 2001). A 2010 Family Court orderawarded sole custody of the child to petitioner (hereinafter the father) and providedrespondent (hereinafter the mother) with visitation every other weekend, everyWednesday evening, half of all holidays and two non-consecutive weeks during thesummer. In 2012, the father commenced a proceeding seeking modification of thecustody order to the extent that the mother no longer have unsupervised visitation withthe child. Shortly thereafter, the mother commenced a modification proceeding seekingcustody of the child. Following a hearing, Family Court determined that neither partyestablished that there had been any change in circumstances warranting modification ofthe prior custody order and dismissed the petitions. The mother now appeals.
"An existing custody order will be modified only if there is a showing of a change in[*2]circumstances revealing a real need for themodification in order to ensure the best interests of the child[ ]" (Matter of John O. v MicheleO., 103 AD3d 939, 941 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]). Here, the proof fell short of establishing any such change in circumstances (see Matter of Bronson vBronson, 63 AD3d 1205, 1206-1207 [2009]; Matter of Sparling v Robinson,35 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006]; Matter of Meyer v Lerche, 24 AD3d 976, 977 [2005]).Although there was proof that the father interfered with the mother's visitation andcommunication with the child—conduct which is not to be condoned—theproof further established that the child is doing well in school, is involved inextracurricular activities, has a stable home environment with the father and his wife andhas been able to maintain a good relationship with both of his parents and his brother andsister. Accordingly, we find no error in Family Court's dismissal of the petitions (seeMatter of John O. v Michele O., 103 AD3d at 941; Matter of Bronson vBronson, 63 AD3d at 1206-1207; Matter of Meyer v Lerche, 24 AD3d at977).
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.