Austin v. Austin
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County, entered May 17, 1977, which awarded custody of the parties’ three children to petitioner. The petitioner and appellant were separated in 1974 and divorced in July, 1975. Temporary custody of the children of the marriage, Patricia, Diane and Frederick, was awarded to appellant. On April 6, 1976, the temporary custody of the eldest child, Patricia, who was then 14, was transferred to the petitioner with the consent of the appellant. On June 27, 1976, the petitioner failed to return Frederick to appellant after a regularly scheduled visitation. Petitioner subsequently petitioned Family Court for permanent custody of Diane and Frederick. The Family Court, following extensive hearings, awarded permanent custody of the children to petitioner. The court in its oral decision stated that the reports of the probation department showed marked changes in the children and in the households of the parents and found that the interests of the children would be best served by their being with the petitioner. The appellant contends, on this appeal, that there is no evidentiary basis for a finding by the court of changed circumstances warranting the transfer of custody from appellant to petitioner. Appellant additionally urges that the Family Court improperly relied on a report of the probation department as the real basis for its decision, the contents of which were not divulged to the parties and which report they were not given an opportunity to controvert. Appellant argues that this constitutes reversible error. We agree. It is a fundamental legal concept that the best interests of children must govern in the adjudication of custody (Domestic Relations Law, § 70). It appears from the record that both parents love and care for their children and that their respective homes are comfortable and more than sufficient to meet the children’s needs. The record contains no significant evidence that the children have suffered any damage while with the appellant outside of minor manifestations of stress shown by them on several occasions. These were the natural consequence of the unfortunate antipathy of the divorced parents towards each other. They are bright, loving, communicative children; wholesome and well-balanced. As the Court of Appeals noted in Matter of Nehra v Uhlar (43 NY2d 242, 251), "Priority, not as an absolute but as a weighty factor, should, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, be accorded to the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.