A fundamental tenet of appellate jurisprudence is that only an aggrieved party may appeal.¹ Aggrievement requires, inter alia, an adjudication against rights, person, or property,² which arises when a party has petitioned for relief that is denied in whole or in part.³ CPLR 5511 requires that an aggrieved appellant be a “party or a person substituted for him.” But who is aggrieved in the event of an improper custody award? The answer is that, while the child is not a captioned party to the action, an improper custody award means that the court has not fulfilled its charge of parens patriae to secure the child's best interests, with the child enduring the consequences.

This article addresses the question of the appealability of a child custody judgment or order where the court has granted the prevailing party, assume the mother, custody of the child precisely as she demanded in her complaint or petition. However, now distanced in time from the furor of the trial, the mother realizes that, based on the evidence and the testimony, the child's best interests will not be best or fully served by the relief that she had requested and received.

By way of example, during trial, the evidence might have revealed the depth of the father's troubled psychiatric history possibly complicated by drug abuse; an arrest for DUI while the child was a passenger; infliction of self injuries; suicidal ideations, or attempted suicide. She believes that the court should have granted her greater custodial authority beyond her demand, such as, supervised visitation for the noncustodial parent.