An intimate cohabitation relationship of a parent, be it heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian in nature, is a proper factor to be considered by the trial court in making a custody determination.  In re Diehl
 Where no open and notorious cohabitation existed, petitioner’s encounters with men did not provide sufficient evidence that her moral standards were low.  In re Smith
 There is no conclusive presumption that, because a custodial parent cohabits with a member of the opposite sex, the child is harmed.  In re Thompson
 A per se rule requiring a change in custody of minor children where the custodial parent cohabits, in the children’s presence, with a member of the opposite sex openly and on a continuing conjugal basis, has not been established, although the trial court should give due consideration to the custodial parent’s living arrangement and its effect on the well-being of the children in determining whether a change in custody is warranted.  Brandt v. Brandt
 The resident presence of the custodial mother’s paramour must be considered in light of the moral values which the parent is actually demonstrating to the children.  In re Olson
 Trial court’s transfer of custody to father, based on mother’s cohabitation with boyfriend, was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and tangible manifestations of damage to the children’s character were not required to effectuate the custody modification.  Jarrett v. Jarrett
 Where the only evidence of unfitness on the part of the father was that contained in the stipulation of his having lived with a woman out of wedlock for eight years, such conduct amounted to past misbehavior, which had been discontinued; thus, the evidence failed to establish unfitness of the father as of the time of the hearing on the petition.  Scott v. Ashcraft

Divorce Lawyers New York