Two New York children spent a school year with grandparents in North Carolina while their mother sought addiction treatment; a November 12 appeals court upheld primary custody for their father after a family dispute

A New York appeals court has upheld a decision giving a father primary physical custody of his two children after they spent a school year living with their grandparents in North Carolina while their mother received treatment for alcoholism. In a ruling issued on November 12, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, upheld a December 13, 2023, decision by the Family Court of Chemung County. A five-judge panel rejected the mother’s appeal. The mother, identified in court papers as Annette D., had asked the court to overturn the order giving the father, Scott E., primary physical custody and final authority over major decisions about the children. The dispute began with what was meant to be a temporary arrangement for the 2022-2023 school year. According to the appeals court decision, written by Justice McShan, the father took the couple’s son, born in 2014, and daughter, born in 2019, to their maternal grandparents’ home in North Carolina in 2022. This allowed the mother to enter a nearby facility for substance abuse treatment. The parents had been together for about 10 years and lived together in Elmira, Chemung County, from January 2021 until February 2022. Court records show that the family had faced state intervention before because of the mother’s drinking. Both parents had separate neglect findings after the mother was found intoxicated while caring for their son. In April 2017, the maternal grandparents in North Carolina were given custody of the boy. Three months later, the parents regained joint legal and physical custody of him with the grandparents’ agreement.

Interstate court clash over the children

The informal plan for the 2022-2023 school year fell apart in March 2023. While still in North Carolina, the mother filed a custody petition and requested an order of protection in a North Carolina District Court. The court issued an order of protection against the father for the mother, but the order did not cover the two children. Two months later, in May 2023, the father started legal proceedings in New York. He filed a petition asking the court to establish custody of the daughter. He also filed separate petitions to change and enforce the existing 2017 custody order for the son. Before moving forward, the Chemung County Family Court contacted the North Carolina District Court to decide which state had the legal authority to handle the case. According to footnotes in the Third Department’s ruling, the North Carolina court issued an order confirming that New York was still the children’s home state. It also declined to take control of the case. After holding a fact-finding hearing and a private Lincoln hearing with the children, Chemung County Family Court Judge Mary Tarantelli gave both parents joint legal custody. She gave the father final authority over major decisions and primary physical custody, while allowing the mother liberal parenting time. Judge Tarantelli also approved the father’s petition to enforce the existing custody order and issued a warning to the mother.

Sobriety progress and relocation claims reviewed

On appeal, the mother argued that the lower court had made a legal mistake by treating the father’s request about their son as a new custody case instead of a request to change the 2017 order. Under the law, changing an existing custody order requires proof that circumstances have changed. The Appellate Division agreed that Judge Tarantelli had used the wrong legal approach when handling the son’s petition. However, the judges said this mistake did not affect the final decision. Justice McShan explained that “this Court’s authority in custody cases is as broad as that of Family Court and, therefore, we may review the record and make an independent determination as to whether the requisite showing of a change in circumstances was made”.After reviewing the evidence themselves, the appeals judges found that the mother had permanently moved to North Carolina. They also found that the informal agreement to bring the children back to New York after the school year had broken down. Together, these facts met the legal requirement for showing a change in circumstances.When considering what was best for the children, the Third Department said both parents were loving caregivers who wanted to remain closely involved in their children’s lives. However, the mother’s long struggle with alcoholism remained a major concern. She had made progress in treatment and had support from her mother nearby. But court records showed that she had relapsed after similar treatment efforts in the past. Her current period of sobriety was also still in its early stages.The judges also looked at the mother’s decision to move without telling the father until she filed court papers in North Carolina. The mother said she had moved to protect herself from domestic violence. However, the Appellate Division rejected this argument. The judges said the evidence showed that she had gone to North Carolina to enter a substance abuse treatment facility, not to escape abuse. The panel also relied on the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses. It upheld the finding that the mother’s claims of physical violence were not supported by the evidence and that both parents were responsible for their troubled relationship.

Confidentiality and judicial bias arguments dismissed

The mother also challenged the Family Court’s use of information from the children’s private Lincoln hearing. She further accused Judge Tarantelli of being biased against her. The appeals panel rejected the claim of bias. It noted that the mother had never formally asked Judge Tarantelli to step aside. The judges also found no evidence in the court record to support the accusation.On the children’s private statements, the court referred to earlier legal decisions. It explained that “information shared by a child during a Lincoln hearing may serve to corroborate other evidence adduced at a fact-finding hearing or to ascertain a child’s thoughts and feelings regarding the crafting of a custodial arrangement, but such considerations must remain silent to ensure that the child’s right to confidentiality is protected”. Presiding Justice Clark and Justices Ceresia, Powers, and Ryba agreed with the decision to uphold the lower court’s order without awarding costs. However, footnotes in the ruling show that the custody dispute is not completely over. In March 2026, the father filed another petition asking the Family Court to change the custody arrangement. That petition was still pending when the appeals court issued its ruling.