IN RE: P.J.B. (2025)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jessica M. Forman, R.), entered on or about January 16, 2024, which granted petitioner mother sole legal and physical custody of the subject children and granted respondent father visitation with the younger child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This appeal is moot as to the parties' older child, who reached the age of majority shortly after Family Court rendered its decision (Matter of Ivan R. v. Lisandra F., 188 A.D.3d 543, 543, 132 N.Y.S.3d 615 [1st Dept. 2020]).

Family Court's decision to modify a prior order granting the parties joint custody and to award sole legal and physical custody of the younger child to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Keoshia R. v. Lamont D., 191 A.D.3d 614, 615, 139 N.Y.S.3d 531 [1st Dept. 2021]).  The mother has shown a change of circumstances, as both children have lived exclusively with her since at least January 2018, and she has managed all their medical and educational needs since then (see Tsung v. Tso, 190 A.D.3d 575, 576, 139 N.Y.S.3d 64 [1st Dept. 2021]).  The record does not support the father's assertion that the mother alienated him from the children (see Matter of D.P. v. N.T., 183 A.D.3d 447, 448, 121 N.Y.S.3d 859 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1078, 130 N.Y.S.3d 424, 154 N.E.3d 10 [2020]).

The parties' testimony established that it was in the best interests of the younger child for the mother to have sole legal and physical custody, as she took care of the child's educational and health needs, including by enrolling her in school, managing all her doctor's visits, and taking her to see a therapist when the need arose (see Matter of Adekunle D.D. v. Luxury M.D., 234 A.D.3d 585, 586, 224 N.Y.S.3d 409 [1st Dept. 2025]).  The father, on the other hand, was often late and inconsistent in visiting the child, and he had no contact with the child's medical providers or teachers (see id.).

In addition, the mother testified that she and the father were no longer capable of successfully navigating a joint legal custodial arrangement, as the father rarely responded to emails and did not respond to texts (see Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C., 128 A.D.3d 496, 496–497, 9 N.Y.S.3d 241 [1st Dept. 2015]).  Finally, the child, who is now 13 years old, expressed her preference to live with the mother and have visitation with the father (see Matter of Ricardo S. v. Carron C., 91 A.D.3d 556, 556, 937 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2012]).