FRANCES MONIQUE PERU v. CRAIG PERU (2026)

Daniel X. Robinson, New York, for appellant.

Maria Schwartz, PC, Garden City (Alexa R. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Katz, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that the child's best interests are served by awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother (see Matter of Tyra H. v. Tariq M., 231 AD3d 595, 595 [1st Dept 2024] ).  The determination was based on credible evidence showing, among other things, that the mother had been significantly more proactive than the father in meeting the educational and medical needs of the child, who is on the autism spectrum (see id.).  Furthermore, the mother provided a stable home and maintained employment, unlike the father, and the maternal grandmother was a resource for the mother and the child (see id. at 596).

By contrast, the father, at least initially, refused to accept the child's autism diagnosis and undermined the mother's attempts to enroll him in school and obtain school-based services pursuant to an individualized education plan (IEP).  Of particular concern was the child's excessive school absences while in the father's care, primarily unrelated to medically documented illness or legitimate transportation concerns, which prevented the child from attending school and receiving therapeutic services to which he was entitled, causing him to regress.  Nor was joint custody appropriate due to the acrimonious nature of the parties' relationship, as well as the fact that the father continually insulted and undermined the mother and surreptitiously took the child for certain evaluations without the mother's knowledge or consent (see Matter of Jamel W. v. Stacey J., 136 AD3d 552, 552–553 [1st Dept 2016] ).

The father also failed to present a realistic plan for the child's education (see Matter of Dariel M. v. Aurelyn Z.G., 179 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2020] ).  He claimed to have no knowledge of the child's kindergarten placement, despite the mother's credible testimony that she had communicated with the father about it.  Rather, the father unilaterally arranged for the child to receive applied behavior analysis (ABA) services, on a private basis, for 20–hours a week, which the father's witness, a board certified behavior analyst from the organization that assessed the child for the services, acknowledged by all accounts, would be very difficult for the child to receive while enrolled in school full-time.  Indeed, contrary to the father's contention, there was no record evidence that ABA services were superior to the vast array of services and opportunity for social and academic development that the child would receive in a

school setting individually tailored to his needs through his IEP.

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.