Opinion
2001-00361
Argued December 16, 2002.
March 10, 2003.
In related child protective and custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 10, the mother appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated December 22, 2000, which, upon a determination of the same court, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she had emotionally neglected the subject child, granted custody of the subject child to the father, and directed that her visitation with the child be supervised. Justice Schmidt has been substituted for the late Justice O'Brien (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 [c]).
Norman A. Olch, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent Presentment Agency in Proceeding No. 1.
Biaggi Biaggi, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey M. Gutfleisch of counsel), for respondent Ramazan U. in Proceedings No. 2 and 3.
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER ON MOTION
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The finding of the Family Court, after conducting a complete evidentiary hearing, that the mother had emotionally neglected the subject child was based on a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Tammie Z., 66 N.Y.2d 1, 3; Matter of Krewsean S., 273 A.D.2d 393, 394; Matter of Barbara S., 244 A.D.2d 556; Matter of Tevina W., 237 A.D.2d 452; Matter of Danielle M., 151 A.D.2d 240, 243). The documented efforts of the mother to interfere with the visitation of the noncustodial parent and to alienate the child from his father are sufficient to support a finding of neglect (see Matter of Hartsough v. Hartsough, 270 A.D.2d 349; Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603).
The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of Ebert v. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700, 702; Matter of Canazon v. Canazon, 215 A.D.2d 652; Alanna M. v. Duncan M., 204 A.D.2d 409). The determination of the hearing court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra at 174; Matter of Darlene T., 28 N.Y.2d 391, 395; Bunim v. Bunim, 298 N.Y. 391, 393; Matter of Morse v. Mignone, 240 A.D.2d 583; Canazon v. Canazon, supra). There is no basis to alter the court's award of custody to the father in this case (see Matter of Hartsough v. Hartsough, supra; Matter of Morse v. Mignone, supra; Canazon v. Canazon, supra at 653).
Supervised visitation is not considered a deprivation of meaningful access to the child (see Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, 232 A.D.2d 417, 418; Matter of Carl J. B. v. Dorothy T., 186 A.D.2d 736, 738; Lightbourne v. Lightbourne, 179 A.D.2d 562), and the provision of the dispositional order directing supervised visitation is supported by the record.
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.