IN RE: Louis GALANOS (2006)

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated May 5, 2005, which directed her to pay the forensic expert a fee of $2,878.20, and (2) an order of the same court dated July 1, 2005, which, after a hearing, awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children with primary physical custody to the father.

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The parties were married on October 7, 1990, and are the parents of two children.   The father filed an emergency petition in October 2003, alleging that while the mother was in Las Vegas, Nevada, purportedly on business, she arranged for the children to be taken from their schools in the middle of the day and brought to Nevada without his knowledge or consent.   The father was subsequently awarded temporary custody of the children and the mother was directed to return the children to New York. Shortly thereafter, the mother filed a cross petition seeking sole custody of the children.

During the hearing, the Family Court, inter alia, heard extensive testimony from the parties and their relatives, and the report and testimony of the court-appointed forensic psychologist.   After hearing all the evidence, the Family Court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children with primary physical custody to the father, in conformity with the recommendation of the Law Guardian and the court-appointed forensic examiner.

 The record supports the determination of the Family Court that awarding the father physical custody of the parties' children was in the children's best interests (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260).   The evidence at trial established that, although the mother presented convincing evidence of a loving relationship between her and the children, the father, who has had temporary custody of the children, is better able than the mother to place the children's needs before his own (see Matter of King v. King, 225 A.D.2d 697, 698, 639 N.Y.S.2d 465;  Dornbusch v. Dornbusch, 110 A.D.2d 808, 809, 488 N.Y.S.2d 229).   The Family Court's determination is further supported by the opinions of the court-appointed forensic psychologist and the Law Guardian (see Bains v. Bains, 308 A.D.2d 557, 558, 764 N.Y.S.2d 721;  Gorelik v. Gorelik, 303 A.D.2d 553, 554, 757 N.Y.S.2d 67;  Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957), as well as by evidence that the children have thrived in the father's temporary custody (see Matter of Plaza v. Plaza, 305 A.D.2d 607, 759 N.Y.S.2d 368;  Matter of Coakley v. Goins, 240 A.D.2d 573, 659 N.Y.S.2d 75), and that the father is the parent who is more likely to ensure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent (see Fanelli v. Fanelli, 215 A.D.2d 718, 720, 627 N.Y.S.2d 425;  Prugh v. Prugh, 298 A.D.2d 569, 570, 748 N.Y.S.2d 695;  O'Connor v. O'Connor, 146 A.D.2d 909, 910, 536 N.Y.S.2d 903).   Contrary to the mother's claim, a review of the court's decision indicates that it gave careful consideration to all relevant factors (see Matter of Picot v. Barrett, 8 A.D.3d 288, 289, 777 N.Y.S.2d 698;  Matter of Taylor v. Lumba, 309 A.D.2d 941, 766 N.Y.S.2d 373;  Miller v. Pipia, 297 A.D.2d 362, 364, 746 N.Y.S.2d 729;  Kuncman v. Kuncman, 188 A.D.2d 517, 591 N.Y.S.2d 349).

 In addition, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to conduct an in-camera interview of the parties' children (see Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 273-274, 299 N.Y.S.2d 842, 247 N.E.2d 659;  Catalan v. Catalan, 6 A.D.3d 482, 483, 774 N.Y.S.2d 412;  Smith v. Finger, 187 A.D.2d 711, 713-714, 590 N.Y.S.2d 301;  Mascoli v. Mascoli, 132 A.D.2d 653, 654, 518 N.Y.S.2d 25), and in denying the mother's application for an order to compel the parties and the children to submit to further psychological evaluation, since there was no showing that the court-ordered evaluation was deficient (see Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt, 107 A.D.2d 292, 294, 486 N.Y.S.2d 741;  see also Matter of Quinn v. Genovese, 158 A.D.2d 602, 551 N.Y.S.2d 844;  Garvin v. Garvin, 162 A.D.2d 497, 499-500, 556 N.Y.S.2d 699).

The mother's remaining contention is without merit.