Matter of Dossantos v Rinck; Matter of Rinck v Dossantos
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Child custody and relocation under Family Court Act article 6 [governs custody and parental access proceedings], specifically whether the mother could relocate with the child from Florida to New York and whether the father should receive primary residential custody.
The Family Court denied the mother's petition to modify the prior custody order to permit relocation to New York and granted the father's petition to the extent of awarding him primary residential custody in Florida if the mother did not return to live in Florida.
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's June 28, 2024 order.
After the Family Court ruled, new developments were brought to the Appellate Division's attention during oral argument by the attorney for the child, making the appellate record insufficient to determine whether the existing custody ruling remained in the child's best interests.
Background
The parties, who were never married, share one child. Under a March 28, 2019 consent order, they had joint legal custody, the mother had residential custody, and the father had parental access. In summer 2022, both parents and the child moved to Florida together. About seven months later, in March 2023, the mother returned to New York with the child and sought modification of the 2019 order to allow relocation from Florida to New York. The father then filed his own modification petition seeking, among other relief, primary residential custody in Florida.
Lower Court Decision
After a hearing, the Family Court, Nassau County, denied the mother's relocation petition and granted the father's petition to the extent of awarding him primary residential custody of the child in Florida if the mother chose not to return to Florida.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed the June 28, 2024 order, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for an expedited hearing and a new determination of both petitions. Pending that determination, the parties were directed to continue complying with the Appellate Division's August 9, 2024 interim order. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding what the ultimate custody result should be.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that in custody and parental access cases, the controlling standard is the child's best interests under the totality of the circumstances. When significant post-order developments make the record stale or incomplete, the Appellate Division may reverse and remit for a fresh hearing rather than affirm or modify based on an outdated record.
In custody disputes, even a full hearing result may be set aside if later developments call into question whether the order still serves the child's best interests.