Opinion
8013
01-03-2019
In re JARVIS L., Petitioner–Respondent, v. JASMINE L.L., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Steve Cohen, New York, for respondent. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Steve Cohen, New York, for respondent.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the child.
Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Dakota Ramseur, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted sole legal custody of the subject child to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court's determination that it is in the child's best interests to award sole legal and primary physical custody to petitioner has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of David H. v. Khalima H. , 111 A.D.3d 544, 976 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1149, 984 N.Y.S.2d 289, 7 N.E.3d 502 [2014] ). The evidence demonstrates that the child thrives in the stable environment of petitioner's home and that petitioner is better equipped than respondent mother to address the child's educational, emotional, and material needs. For the first seven years of the child's life, while respondent was the child's primary caretaker, she had a difficult time providing a stable home environment for him, as evidenced by a series of relocations. Moreover, the child missed a substantial number of days from school, repeated the first grade, displayed behavioral problems, and changed school districts three times. During the year that he was in petitioner's care, the child thrived academically, participated in extracurricular activities, and exhibited improved behavior.
The record shows that petitioner was more willing than respondent to facilitate the noncustodial parent's relationship with the child (see Matter of Damien P.C. v. Jennifer H.S. , 57 A.D.3d 295, 869 N.Y.S.2d 59 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 710, 2009 WL 1260207 [2009] ). While the child was in respondent's care, petitioner was unable to communicate with him daily. While in petitioner's care, the child was able to communicate with respondent, and petitioner arranged the child's travel to ensure that respondent had visitation with him.
The court also gave proper weight to the child's expressed preference to reside with petitioner (see Melissa C.D. v. Rene I.D. , 117 A.D.3d 407, 408, 985 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.