Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768 (1975)

In custody disputes, courts may rely on confidential reports from family counseling units when both parties consent to the referral, and a change in custody from a long-term custodial parent requires a showing that the custodial parent is less fit.

Summary

In a child custody dispute, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, which upheld the Special Term’s decision to award custody to the mother. The court emphasized that because both parents consented to a referral to a family counseling unit, the Special Term properly relied on the confidential reports. Furthermore, the court stated a preference for maintaining custody with the parent who has long-term care of the children, requiring the father to demonstrate the mother was a less fit parent before altering the existing custody arrangement. The court also cautioned against separating siblings and transferring custody away from a long-term caregiver.

Facts

The case involves a custody dispute between the parents of young children. The children had been in the custody of their mother since birth. Both parties consented to a referral to a family counseling unit for a confidential report to the court.

Procedural History

The Special Term awarded custody to the mother, relying partly on confidential reports from the family counseling unit. The Appellate Division affirmed this order. The father appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Special Term erred in relying on confidential reports from the family counseling unit when both parties consented to the referral.
2. Whether the Special Term applied the correct standard in requiring the father to show that the mother was “less fit” before changing custody.

Holding

1. Yes, because when both parties consent to the referral, the Special Term may properly rely on confidential reports from the family counseling unit.
2. Yes, because, under the circumstances, the Special Term properly required the father to show that the mother was “less fit” as a parent before the court would change custody that she had retained for so long.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the Special Term properly relied on the confidential reports from the family counseling unit because the parties consented to the referral. The court cited Kesseler v. Kesseler, emphasizing the validity of such reliance when consent is given. The court also underscored the importance of maintaining stability in custody arrangements, particularly for young children who have been with their mother since birth. According to the court, Domestic Relations Law § 240 implied that a parent seeking to change custody must demonstrate that the current custodial parent is less fit. The court stated, “The courts should be reluctant to transfer custody of young children who have been with their mother since birth, or to permit separate custody of siblings.” Although the court acknowledged possible interference with the father’s presentation of evidence, it found no violation of due process. The court based its holding on the existing consent to the confidential reports, the need to maintain stability for the children, and the requirement to demonstrate the unfitness of the long-term custodial parent. The court explicitly affirmed the principle that custody changes should be approached with caution, particularly when young children are involved, and siblings should not be separated without compelling reasons.