Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270 (1969)

In child custody disputes between divorced parents, the child’s welfare is paramount, and the trial court has discretion to interview the child privately to ascertain their preferences and understand the impact of parental conflict.

Summary

In a custody dispute, the father sought custody of his three children, who were originally in the mother’s custody per a separation agreement. The trial court granted custody to the father after interviewing the children privately, over the objection of the mother’s counsel. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while private interviews pose risks, they are sometimes necessary to ascertain the child’s true preferences and minimize emotional burden. The court emphasized that the child’s welfare is paramount and justifies limited deviations from traditional adversarial procedures to gather the information needed for sound custody decisions. The court emphasized that judges should verify any previously unmentioned adverse information gleaned from these interviews during open hearings.

Facts

A father initiated proceedings to gain custody of his three children. A separation agreement, later incorporated into a divorce decree, had placed the children in their mother’s custody. During the custody hearing, the trial court interviewed the children privately, without the presence of either parent’s counsel, to ascertain their preferences and understand the impact of the parental conflict on the children.

Procedural History

The trial court granted custody to the father, awarding visitation rights to the mother. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, despite acknowledging two errors during the trial. The Appellate Division determined that the evidence overwhelmingly favored the father’s custody. The mother appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court, in a child custody proceeding, commits prejudicial error by conducting a private interview with the children involved, without the consent or presence of the parties’ counsel.

Holding

No, because the paramount concern in a custody dispute is the welfare and interests of the children, allowing the trial court discretion to conduct private interviews to ascertain the child’s preferences and understand the impact of the parental conflict, provided the judge verifies any new adverse information from the interview during the open hearing.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that a child in a custody dispute faces significant emotional stress, and forcing them to publicly express their difficulties with or choose between parents can be detrimental. Private interviews minimize this psychological burden and allow for a more honest expression of the child’s desires. The court emphasized that the judge acts as parens patriae, and the procedures must be molded to serve the child’s best interests, even if it requires modifications to traditional adversarial practices. The court distinguished Kesseler v. Kesseler, noting that while third-party reports require accuracy checks and opportunities for rebuttal, the emotional considerations surrounding children’s interviews warrant a different approach. The court recognized the risks of distorted perceptions and transient feelings in children but expressed confidence that trial judges would mitigate these risks by verifying any adverse information from the interview during the open hearing. The court noted: “The entire issue is a most delicate one, but in weighing the competing considerations, we are convinced that the interests of the child will be best served by granting to the trial court in a custody proceeding discretion to interview the child in the absence of its parents or their counsel.” Ultimately, the court concluded that granting the trial court this discretion best serves the child’s interests.