Opinion
6860
06-14-2018
In re LEONIDEZ A., Petitioner–Respondent, v. SIRA L.R., Respondent–Appellant.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Joseph R. Daniels, New York, for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Katherine J. Herrmann of counsel), attorney for the child.
Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Joseph R. Daniels, New York, for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Katherine J. Herrmann of counsel), attorney for the child.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Tom, Mazzarelli, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Tracey A. Bing, J.), entered on or about August 7, 2017, which, after a hearing, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child to petitioner father, and parenting time to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( Matter of Xiomara M. v. Robert M., 102 A.D.3d 581, 582, 958 N.Y.S.2d 391 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The court considered the relevant factors, and properly determined that the child's welfare and happiness would be best served in the father's care ( Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ), particularly given that the father has provided the child with unwavering stability (see Matter of Michael B. [Lillian B.], 145 A.D.3d 425, 430, 42 N.Y.S.3d 141 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Since the child was very young, he has spent the entirety of every weekend with the father and the paternal extended family, whereas, when with the mother during the week, in New York, the child spent much of his time with a babysitter, even when the mother was not working. By contrast, the father has been more of a hands-on parent, who spent as much time as he could with the child, and relied on family or caregivers as little as possible (see id. at 428, 42 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; see also John A. v. Bridget M., 16 A.D.3d 324, 335, 791 N.Y.S.2d 421 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 710, 804 N.Y.S.2d 34, 837 N.E.2d 733 [2005] ). The father has been active in the child's education, as well as in enriching him with extracurricular activities and excursions (see Louise E.S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947, 488 N.Y.S.2d 637, 477 N.E.2d 1091 [1985] ; see also Michael B., 145 A.D.3d at 428, 42 N.Y.S.3d 141). Moreover, the father has greater financial stability, and the child has thrived in his care (see e.g. Williams v. Williams, 78 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 911 N.Y.S.2d 209 [3d Dept. 2010] ; see also Ricardo S. v. Carron C., 91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Further, the father recognized and supported the child's need to maintain a relationship with the mother and his half-siblings and ensured that the child spent holidays with them while the child was in his care in New York and also visited them in Florida (see e.g. Matter of Winslow v. Lott, 272 A.D.2d 406, 707 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2d Dept. 2000] ). The mother, on the other hand, has shown a disregard for the child's relationship with the father (see Matter of Matthew W. v. Meagan R., 68 A.D.3d 468, 891 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2009], having, among other things, absconded with the child to Florida without the father's knowledge or consent (see Matter of Goodman v. Jones, 146 A.D.3d 884, 885, 45 N.Y.S.3d 192 [2d Dept. 2017] ).