- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Matter of Maslava v. Oppedisano
- Docket
- 2025-03567
- Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Slip Op
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03310
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03310 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2026)
Background
Sviatlana Maslava and Richard T. Oppedisano are the parents of two children. In a so-ordered stipulation dated June 30, 2023, entered upon consent, the parties agreed to a custody arrangement. The mother subsequently commenced a proceeding to modify custody, alleging changed circumstances, and also filed a family offense petition against the father. In August 2024, the mother sought primary residential custody of the children.
After a hearing, the Family Court, Dutchess County dismissed the family offense petition but granted the modification petition, awarding the mother primary residential custody. The court also imposed a restriction directing that the father “shall have no other parties present at his home during his parenting time with the children, with the exception of the children’s half-brother.” The father appealed from the modification order and the visitor restriction.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department modified the order by deleting the provision restricting the father from having visitors present during parenting time, and otherwise affirmed. The court upheld the modification of custody to award the mother primary residential custody, finding the Family Court’s determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court applied the established framework requiring a showing of a “change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child,” and deferred to the Family Court’s assessment of credibility and the totality of factors including quality of home environment, parental guidance, emotional and intellectual development, financial status, and the effect on the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent.
However, the court struck the blanket prohibition on the father having any visitors present during his parenting time. While the court did not elaborate extensively on its reasoning for deleting this provision, the modification reflects a recognition that such a broad restriction — effectively barring the father from having any friends, family members, or romantic partners present during parenting time — was not supported by the facts and circumstances in the exercise of the court’s discretion.
Takeaways
This decision illustrates both the deference accorded to Family Court custody determinations and the limits of the restrictions that can be imposed on a noncustodial parent’s parenting time. While courts have broad discretion to structure custody and visitation arrangements in the best interests of the children, restrictions on a parent’s conduct during parenting time must be tailored to the specific concerns presented by the evidence. A blanket prohibition on all visitors — without an evidentiary basis connecting specific visitors or categories of visitors to harm or risk to the children — will not withstand appellate review.
The decision also highlights the distinction between custody modification and family offense proceedings. The Family Court dismissed the family offense petition while still granting a custody modification, reflecting that the standard for establishing a family offense differs from the standard for determining custody — a parent’s behavior may warrant a change in the custody arrangement even if it does not rise to the level of a family offense under Family Court Act article 8.
Why It Matters
For family law practitioners, this case provides a useful example of appellate review of custody modification orders. Courts will respect the factual findings of the Family Court regarding the best interests of the children, but will scrutinize specific conditions imposed on parenting time to ensure they are supported by the record. Noncustodial parents who are subject to overbroad restrictions in Family Court orders should consider appealing those specific provisions, even when the overall custody determination is unlikely to be disturbed. The decision confirms that parenting time conditions must be reasonable, evidence-based, and proportionate to the concerns they are designed to address.