Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: STACEY–ANN H.J., Petitioner–Respondent, v. IAN J., Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer S. Burtt, Referee), entered on or about December 11, 2019, deemed appeal from final order, same court and Referee, entered on or about December 16, 2019 (CPLR 5520[c] ), which, inter alia, awarded petitioner mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two younger children, and, so considered, said final order unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The award of sole legal and physical custody of the subject children to petitioner has a sound and substantial basis in the record, which shows that the evidence of the children's best interests weighs in petitioner's favor (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982]; Melissa C.D. v. Rene I.D., 117 A.D.3d 407, 985 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 2014] ). The children have resided since their birth with petitioner, who has been their primary caretaker and source of financial support. Moreover, notwithstanding respondent's acts of domestic violence against her, petitioner has fostered a relationship between respondent and the children (see Matter of Vasquez v. Ortiz, 77 A.D.3d 962, 909 N.Y.S.2d 155 [2d Dept. 2010] ). By contrast, respondent's words and actions belie his claim that he would encourage a relationship between petitioner and the children. The court properly considered respondent's acts of domestic violence against petitioner in the children's presence (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1][a]; Matter of Julie v. Wills, 73 A.D.3d 777, 899 N.Y.S.2d 669 [2d Dept. 2010] ). In addition, it is the children's preference to remain with petitioner (see Melissa C.D., 117 A.D.3d at 408, 985 N.Y.S.2d 28).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 12796
Decided: January 07, 2021
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)