IN RE: SHAINISKA D. (2025)

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Erin E. Browne, Ref.), entered on or about June 10, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner mother's petition for sole physical and legal custody of the subject children and, in effect, denied respondent father's cross-petition for sole physical and legal custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties do not dispute that joint custody was inappropriate in this case because of the acrimonious relationship between them and their inability to productively and effectively communicate with each other (see Matter of Chirag C. v. Jaimie D., 226 A.D.3d 470, 471, 206 N.Y.S.3d 604 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 907, 2024 WL 4845051 [2024];  Lubit v. Lubit, 65 A.D.3d 954, 955, 885 N.Y.S.2d 492 [1st Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 716, 2010 WL 118203 [2010]).  Furthermore, Family Court's determination that the children's best interests would be served by awarding sole physical and legal custody to the mother was based on a thorough assessment of the testimony of the parties and is supported by a sound and substantial basis (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982];  Lubit, 65 A.D.3d at 955, 885 N.Y.S.2d 492).  The court had the benefit of a full evidentiary hearing, and its determination rests on its assessments of the witnesses' demeanor-and credibility (see Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Carl T. v. Yajaira A.C., 95 A.D.3d 640, 641, 945 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2012]).  The court also properly considered all relevant circumstances, including the overall stability each parent provided to the children's lives (see Russo v. Maier, 196 A.D.2d 720, 720, 602 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept. 1993]).  The children had lived with the mother consistently since birth, and she had been primarily responsible for their medical care and education.  She was also able to provide the children with adequate housing and financial support, and the maternal grandmother was regularly available to assist with their care (see Matter of Alexis A.T. v. Gary C.T., 204 A.D.3d 555, 555–556, 165 N.Y.S.3d 288 [1st Dept. 2022]).  In addition, the mother complied with the father's court-ordered parenting time.

The father's actions while the family was living in the Dominican Republic created lingering mistrust between the parents and negatively affected their ability to co-parent.  Specifically, the father became concerned at the potentially unsafe condition of their residence, and without discussing these issues with the mother, lied to her and absconded with the children, bringing them back to his father's home in Oregon and withholding them for 10 days.  These actions separated a breastfeeding infant from her mother, until the children were finally returned to the mother in accordance with a court order.  This incident suggests that even though both parents at times withheld information from each other, the mother is more likely to foster the relationship between the father and children, and less likely to place her own needs above those of the children (see Chirag C., 226 A.D.3d at 471, 206 N.Y.S.3d 604;  White v. White, 71 A.D.3d 473, 474, 898 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept. 2010]).