Judicial Insight
Back to feed
( unchanged)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Holmes v. Stenshorn

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
672 CAF 25-01351
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05658
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 3, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : the mother's modification petition with prejudice.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    ( unchanged)

TL;DR

  1. 1A mother a decision that refused to change her child's .
  2. 2The court decided to keep the existing setup, focusing on stability for the child.
  3. 3The key reason was that the current arrangement was seen as best for the child's interests.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the mother show enough of a change in circumstances to revisit custody?

    Holding · The court found that, given the circumstances, the stability of the current arrangement was in the child's best interest.

Why it matters

This affects families dealing with custody changes and highlights the court's focus on child stability.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Mom wants new custody terms, but is it best for the child?

  1. 1A mother wanted to change the custody deal for her child.
  2. 2She claimed things had changed enough to revisit the arrangement.
  3. 3The court had to decide if a new setup was really best for the child.

Should the court change the custody order as the mother requested?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Holmes

  • Appellee

    Stenshorn

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Holmes v Stenshorn 2026 NY Slip Op 05658 October 2, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDRA L. HOLMES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v CHRISTOPHER T. STENSHORN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 672 CAF 25-01351 Present: Montour, J.P., Ogden, Greenwood, Nowak, And Skinner, JJ. LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. THOMAS L. PELYCH, HORNELL, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. JESSICA BRYANT SERRETT, GENEVA, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Daniel G. Barrett, J.), dated July 15, 2025, in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, dismissed the modification petition with prejudice. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, in relevant part, dismissed her petition seeking modification of the parties' prior order of custody and visitation. We reject the mother's contention that Family Court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the existing custody arrangement. Assuming, arguendo, that the mother demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into the best interests of the child, we conclude that the record establishes that "the continuity and stability of the existing custodial arrangement is in the child[ ]'s best interests" (Matter of Wilson v Hayward, 128 AD3d 1475, 1477 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 909 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Latray v Hewitt, 181 AD3d 1175, 1176 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 908 [2020]). Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener