IN RE: RODNEY W. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Beth Beller, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a fact-finding hearing denied petitioner father's petition for sole physical and legal custody of the subject child and granted sole physical and legal custody of the subject child to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that joint custody was not appropriate due to the parties' lack of trust and demonstrated difficulties with communicating effectively (see 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], cert denied 560 U.S. 940, 130 S.Ct. 3362, 176 L.Ed.2d 1247 [2010]).  Both parties unequivocally testified that they did not trust each other, and the record reflects repeated failures of communication and ongoing conflicts (see Matter of Paul D. v. Margarita O., 227 A.D.3d 439, 440, 210 N.Y.S.3d 404 [1st Dept. 2024]).

Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding sole physical and legal custody to the mother with parenting time to the father was based on a thorough assessment of the witnesses' demeanor and credibility and is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982];  Matter of Judith L.C. v. Lawrence Y., 179 A.D.3d 616, 616, 118 N.Y.S.3d 573 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 911, 2020 WL 5047416 [2020];  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's decision to credit the mother's testimony and not to fully credit the father's testimony is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Judith L.C., 179 A.D.3d at 616, 118 N.Y.S.3d 573).  As the court observed, the father's testimony was inconsistent and contradictory in that he claimed to be the sole breadwinner during a period when he was unemployed, he claimed not to know where the child attended school yet later testified that he spoke to school staff and obtained the child's records, and he provided conflicting testimony regarding the child's need for assistance and services.  Thus, the court properly discredited aspects of the father's testimony and reasonably resolved any conflicting testimony in favor of the mother (see Matter of Alexei S. v. Michael M., 132 A.D.3d 466, 467, 17 N.Y.S.3d 632 [1st Dept. 2015]).

Moreover, the mother has been the child's primary caretaker since birth and provided her with a safe and stable home life (see Matter of Darryl M. v. Shaniqua D., 242 A.D.3d 512, 513, 241 N.Y.S.3d 44 [1st Dept. 2025]).  The father has lacked stable housing and employment, while the mother has maintained the same apartment and flexible job for years.  The mother has always been the primary parent involved with the child's education and health (see Matter of Stephanie C. v. Ricardo E., 231 A.D.3d 663, 664, 219 N.Y.S.3d 329 [1st Dept. 2024]).  The mother arranged for the child to be evaluated and receive early intervention services, enrolled the child in school, ensured the child completed her homework, and worked with the school on the child's Individualized Education Plan and services (see Matter of Jamel W. v. Stacey J., 136 A.D.3d 552, 553, 26 N.Y.S.3d 30 [1st Dept. 2016]).  The mother scheduled all the child's medical appointments, handled her health insurance, and brought her to a specialized dentist (see Matter of Daniel B. v. Deshauna S., 226 A.D.3d 552, 553, 210 N.Y.S.3d 50 [1st Dept. 2024]).

The record also supports the court's determination that the mother is more likely to place the child's needs first and to foster the relationship between the father and the child, “even though both parents at times withheld information from each other” (Shainiska D. v. Gage D., 242 A.D.3d 411, 412, 240 N.Y.S.3d 60 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 909, 2026 WL 59690 [2026]).  In contrast, the father put himself first and failed to consider the child's feelings when he refused to cooperate with supervised visitation and had no contact with her for over a year, and he completely disregarded her best interests when he made false reports about the mother to law enforcement, causing the child to be subjected to interviews and bodily examinations (see Matter of James Joseph M. v. Rosana R., 32 A.D.3d 725, 726, 821 N.Y.S.2d 168 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 717, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990 [2006]).  Although the mother was reluctant to communicate with the father due to his history of retaliatory behavior, she nevertheless expressed a willingness to cooperate and a desire for the child to have a positive relationship with the father, and she never disparaged the father to the child (see Matter of Scott W. v. Krizzia G., 194 A.D.3d 406, 407, 143 N.Y.S.3d 202 [1st Dept. 2021]).