Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982)
r
r
Custody of children should be established on a long-term basis and should not be changed merely because a child expresses a desire to live with the other parent; while a child’s view should be considered, it is not determinative.
r
r
Summary
r
In a custody dispute, the New York Court of Appeals held that the children’s expressed wish to live with their father was not a sufficient reason to change custody, which had been with the mother for the past eight years. The court emphasized that custody arrangements should be stable and not subject to frequent changes based on a child’s fluctuating preferences. While a child’s opinion should be considered to understand their attitude and relevant facts, it should not be the deciding factor. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to maintain custody with the mother, emphasizing the need for stability in the children’s lives.
r
r
Facts
r
The parents were involved in a custody dispute regarding their two children. The children had expressed a desire to live with their father. For the past eight years, the children had been living with their mother. The father had liberal visitation rights as per the original custody decree.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The lower court considered the children’s wishes. The Appellate Division determined that custody should remain with the mother. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the children’s expressed wish to live with their father warrants a change in custody, given that they have lived with their mother for the past eight years and she is capable of providing for and raising them?
r
r
Holding
r
No, because custody of children should be established on a long-term basis and should not be changed merely because a child at some time states that he desires it. While a child’s view should be considered to ascertain his attitude and to lead to relevant facts, it should not be determinative.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that changing custody based solely on a child’s preference would be detrimental to their well-being, leading to instability and a