Majority
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, William Ross, brought this proceeding in June 1998 seeking to modify an order entered three months earlier upon the consent of the parties, awarding sole custody of their child to respondent. Family Court properly granted the petition following a hearing. “It is well established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest of the child” (Matter of Irwin v Neyland, 213 AD2d 773 ; see, Matter of Hilliard v Peroni, 245 AD2d 1107 , 1108). Petitioner asserted that a change in custody was warranted because respondent agreed to allow the child to reside with him, the child was in fact residing with him, and respondent was unable to handle the child. The testimony at the hearing established that the child would be unruly when residing with respondent, but behaved appropriately when residing with petitioner during the scheduled visitation. Petitioner offered into evidence a note signed by respondent on May 23, 1998, acknowledging that the child was now residing with petitioner.
We agree with the court that petitioner established a change in circumstances based on the difficulty experienced by respondent in raising the child in her home. Although respondent testified that the child was unruly due to petitioner’s interference with the child’s relationship with her (see generally, Perez
Cases cited
- Irwin v. Neyland 213 AD2d 773 p. 972
- Hilliard v. Peroni 245 AD2d 1107 at 1108 p. 972
- Perez v. Perez 239 AD2d 868 at 869 p. 973
- Paul G. v. Donna G. 175 AD2d 236 at 237 p. 973
- Moreau v. Sirles 268 AD2d 811 p. 973
- Eschbach v. Eschbach 56 NY2d 167 at 172-173 p. 973
- Paul C. v. Tracy C. 209 AD2d 955 at 956 p. 973
- Taber v. Taylor 238 AD2d 696 at 697 p. 973