IN RE: Herold ABRAHAM (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Victoria R. Gumbs–Moore, J.), dated April 23, 2021.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which was for sole physical custody of the parties' children.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties are the parents of twins born in 2012.  In 2019, the father petitioned, inter alia, for sole physical custody of the children.  After a hearing, the Family Court, among other things, granted that branch of the father's petition which was for sole physical custody of the children.  The mother appeals.

“The court's paramount concern when making any custody determination is the best interests of the children, as determined upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances” (Cohen v. Cohen, 177 A.D.3d 848, 850, 114 N.Y.S.3d 458 [citations omitted];  see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260).  “In determining a child's best interest, the court must consider, among other things, (1) the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent;  (2) each parent's ability to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development;  (3) each parent's ability to provide for the child financially;  (4) each parent's relative fitness;  and (5) the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Williamson v. Williamson, 182 A.D.3d 604, 605–606, 122 N.Y.S.3d 656;  see Matter of Patten v. Patten, 206 A.D.3d 811, 812, 170 N.Y.S.3d 183).

Here, the Family Court's determination to award sole physical custody to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed.  The record demonstrates that, although both parties are loving parents, the father is better able to provide for the children's academic needs and overall well-being.  Moreover, the evidence presented at the hearing established that the father was more willing than the mother to assure meaningful contact between the children and the noncustodial parent (see Matter of Patten v. Patten, 206 A.D.3d at 812, 170 N.Y.S.3d 183;  Matter of Merchan v. Hoyos, 199 A.D.3d 919, 919, 154 N.Y.S.3d 479;  Matter of McFarlane v. Jones, 193 A.D.3d 936, 936, 142 N.Y.S.3d 422).  Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the father's petition which was for sole physical custody of the children.

DUFFY, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.