Opinion
12028 Dkt. No. V2675-17/18D Case No. 2019-03498
10-13-2020
In re MONIQUE J., Petitioner-Respondent, v. KEITH S., Respondent-Appellant.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Mary Beth Forshaw of counsel), for respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York (Mary Beth Forshaw of counsel), for respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), attorney for the child.
Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Oing, Shulman, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2019, which, after a trial, granted the mother's petition to modify a prior custody order, and awarded her sole legal custody of the subject child with permission to move to North Carolina, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to the father's contention, there is no basis to disturb the court's determination that the mother credibly testified that he perpetrated acts of domestic violence against her, which gave rise to a finding of neglect being entered against him (see Matter of Keenan S. [Keith S.], 180 A.D.3d 500, 115 N.Y.S.3d 877 [1st Dept. 2020], lv dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 1035, 126 N.Y.S.3d 690, 150 N.E.3d 356 [2020]. Further, the court's determination that it was in the best interests of the child to modify the parents' joint custody agreement and award the mother sole legal custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Deanna V. v. Michael C., 179 A.D.3d 445, 446, 117 N.Y.S.3d 189 [1st Dept. 2020] ). The mother has been the child's primary caretaker since birth and has closely managed his extensive educational and medical needs, with little to no participation by the father.
In addition, the court considered all the relevant factors and properly concluded that the proposed relocation to North Carolina would serve the child's best interests (see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ). The mother showed that the move would improve the child's quality of life since she would have family support, educational and medical resources, and employment opportunities (see Kevin McK. v. Elizabeth A.E., 111 A.D.3d 124, 131, 972 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The father's concern that a move would disrupt the child's continuity of medical care is unfounded, as the mother testified that she has already consulted with the child's doctors in New York and arranged for them to consult with the medical team at the hospital in North Carolina in advance of their arrival. Meanwhile, the father admitted that he had not researched the hospital in North Carolina or contacted any of its doctors, despite his stated concerns.