IN RE: Kwaku QUARTEY (2019)

DECISION & ORDER

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

The parties, who were never married, have one child together.  The Family Court, after a hearing, denied the father's petition for custody of the parties' child, and granted the mother's petition for custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child to North Carolina.  The father appeals.

“The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Boggio v. Boggio, 96 A.D.3d 834, 835, 945 N.Y.S.2d 764).  Where, as here, the matter concerns an initial custody determination, the strict application of the Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 factors, relevant to relocation petitions, is not required, and therefore the mother's request for permission to relocate with the child to North Carolina is but one factor to be considered in determining what custody arrangement is in the child's best interests (see Matter of Renee P.-F. v. Frank G., 161 A.D.3d 1163, 79 N.Y.S.3d 45;  Matter of McDonald v. Thomas, 154 A.D.3d 763, 764, 62 N.Y.S.3d 148).

According deference to the credibility determinations of the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, and considering the totality of the circumstances, the award of custody to the mother, with permission to relocate with the child to North Carolina, was in the child's best interests (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;  Matter of Felty v. Felty, 108 A.D.3d 705, 707, 969 N.Y.S.2d 557).  The evidence established that the mother has been the child's primary caretaker for the child's entire life.  While the father has a close relationship with the child, he has contributed very little to her in the way of financial support, even after obtaining stable employment and while living rent-free with his parents.  The mother has consistently fostered a relationship between the child and the father and his parents, and the child will benefit from remaining in the same household as her older half-sibling, who is the mother's child from a prior relationship.  The mother established that the reason for her move to North Carolina was economic necessity, and we agree with the Family Court's determination that this factor was particularly salient in light of the father's near total abdication of his responsibility to provide financial support for the child.  Finally, we agree with the court's determination that the child and the father will be able to continue to enjoy a close relationship by speaking regularly on the telephone, and with parental access on school breaks, including over the summer, which they have historically spent together.

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.