IN RE: Glenda PAEZ (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Andrea F. Composto, J.), dated May 2, 2025.  The order, after a hearing, granted the father's petition, in effect, to modify an order of the same court (Keith J. Cornell, J.) dated October 20, 2021, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, with parental access to the mother, and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother.

ORDERED that the order dated May 2, 2025, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have one child in common, born in 2014.  In November 2015, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the father.  In an order dated October 20, 2021 (hereinafter the 2021 order), the court modified the parental access schedule.  In January 2023, the mother filed a petition to modify the 2021 order so as to award the father supervised parental access with the child.  In March 2023, the father filed a petition, in effect, to modify the 2021 order so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the mother.  After a hearing, the court granted the father's petition and awarded the father sole legal and physical custody of the child, with supervised parental access to the mother.  The mother appeals.

“In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Jones v. Jones, 231 A.D.3d 829, 830, 219 N.Y.S.3d 705 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “ ‘The paramount concern when making such a determination is the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Smisek v. DeSantis, 239 A.D.3d 867, 868, 234 N.Y.S.3d 293, quoting Matter of Martinez v. Gaddy, 223 A.D.3d 816, 817, 204 N.Y.S.3d 163).  “When deciding whether a modification is in a child's best interests, factors to be considered include 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, ․ the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationship with the other parent,” and “[s]tability and continuity in [the] child's life” (Matter of El–Sayegh v. Saadini, 245 A.D.3d 939, 940, 250 N.Y.S.3d 612 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Martinez v. Gaddy, 223 A.D.3d at 817, 204 N.Y.S.3d 163).  “ ‘Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's custody determination will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Acevedo v. Cassidy, 236 A.D.3d 645, 647, 228 N.Y.S.3d 654, quoting Matter of Turcios v. Cordero, 173 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 100 N.Y.S.3d 569).

Here, the Family Court's determination that a change in circumstances existed to warrant modification of custody and parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.  Additionally, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination to award sole legal and physical custody of the child to the father.  The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated, inter alia, that the mother lacked the insight to perceive how her negative feelings about the father, sometimes expressed in the presence of the child, affected the child, and that awarding the father sole legal and physical custody was in the child's best interests (see Keefer v. Keefer, 211 A.D.3d 828, 832, 179 N.Y.S.3d 758;  Matter of Smith v. Francis, 206 A.D.3d 914, 916, 170 N.Y.S.3d 195;  Matter of Zeis v. Slater, 57 A.D.3d 793, 794, 870 N.Y.S.2d 387).  Moreover, the court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to limit the mother's parental access to supervised parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Cruz v. Williams, 239 A.D.3d 847, 236 N.Y.S.3d 286;  Matter of Chung v. Toppin, 209 A.D.3d 647, 649, 174 N.Y.S.3d 868;  Matter of Wagner v. Del Valle, 198 A.D.3d 664, 152 N.Y.S.3d 335).  Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properly considered the child's wishes, weighed in light of his age and maturity (see Matter of Baalla v. Baalla, 158 A.D.3d 676, 678, 71 N.Y.S.3d 138).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.