Matter of Patrick T. S* v. Kevin R. R*, et al., centers on a father’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain primary physical custody of his child from the maternal grandparents, who had been granted such custody in a prior Dutchess County Family Court order.
At the heart of the dispute is the Family Court's threshold requirement: in order to justify revisiting a custody order, a parent must not only allege but substantiate that there has been a material change in circumstances since the last determination, and that such a change implicates the child’s best interests.
The father’s petition argued, in essence, that since the original custody award, he had consistently exercised his parenting time and that the "extraordinary circumstances" underpinning the grandparents’ custodial role were no longer applicable. However, these assertions—uncorroborated by any supporting facts or documentation—were deemed insufficient to warrant a formal hearing.
Notably, both the maternal grandparents and the attorney for the child moved to dismiss the petition, suggesting a consensus among the involved parties (excluding the father) that a custody change was neither necessary nor beneficial to the child’s welfare. The Family Court, accepting this position, dismissed the father’s petition "without prejudice," thereby leaving the door open for future petitions should the father be able to present a compelling factual basis.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the outcome nothing that without a fact-specific proffer of new conditions or improvements that directly affect the child’s well-being, courts are unlikely to disrupt an existing arrangement—especially where the custodial caregivers are non-parents, and the child’s continuity of care is paramount.
Love isn't enough in Family Court ....
# # #
DECISION