IN RE: Javante CARRINGTON (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated December 1, 2022.  The order, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the parties’ child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have one child together.  In July 2021, the father commenced this proceeding for sole custody of the child, who was born in November 2008, alleging, inter alia, that a Georgia state court had removed the child from the mother's custody and issued an order of protection against her for allegedly abusing the child, resulting in the mother's arrest.  After a hearing, the Family Court granted the father's petition for sole custody of the child.  The mother appeals.

In a child custody case, the court's paramount concern is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d 679, 680, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Matter of Baptiste v. Gregoire, 140 A.D.3d 746, 747, 33 N.Y.S.3d 342;  Matter of Hutchinson v. Johnson, 134 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 23 N.Y.S.3d 279).  In determining what custody arrangement is in the child's best interests, the court should consider several factors, including “the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent” (Matter of Baptiste v. Gregoire, 140 A.D.3d at 747, 33 N.Y.S.3d 342 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d at 680–681, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Matter of Hutchinson v. Johnson, 134 A.D.3d at 1116, 23 N.Y.S.3d 279).  In addition, the court should consider the child's wishes, viewed in light of the age and maturity of the child (see Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d at 681, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Matter of Baptiste v. Gregoire, 140 A.D.3d at 747, 33 N.Y.S.3d 342;  Matter of Hutchinson v. Johnson, 134 A.D.3d at 1116, 23 N.Y.S.3d 279).  Insofar as custody determinations largely turn on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the hearing court's determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Gulzar v. Gulzar, 173 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 101 N.Y.S.3d 653;  Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d at 681, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Matter of Gorsky v. Kessler, 78 A.D.3d 834, 835, 911 N.Y.S.2d 129).

Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination awarding sole custody of the child to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed.  The record established that the mother had struck the child with a belt on multiple occasions and, on at least one occasion, with a cord, that the child was properly cared for and doing well in school while in the father's care, and that the child wished to reside with the father (see Hogan v. Hogan, 159 A.D.3d at 681, 71 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Matter of Hutchinson v. Johnson, 134 A.D.3d at 1117, 23 N.Y.S.3d 279;  cf.  Matter of Marrero v. Centeno, 71 A.D.3d 771, 773–774, 896 N.Y.S.2d 157).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.