Matter of Castro v. Santiago

3 Citing cases

  1. Jamel W. v. Stacey J.

    136 A.D.3d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 14 times

    On the other hand, the father has failed to demonstrate his ability to place the child's needs above his own. The mother is also able to provide greater stability for the child, since she has resided in the same apartment for ten years, and has been in her current employment for at least seven years, and maintained the job prior to that for a period of eight years (see Matter of Castro v. Santiago, 176 A.D.2d 520, 521, 575 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.1991] ). The mother has also demonstrated that she is a very good primary caretaker, within whose custody the child has been from the time of his birth (see Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 770, 375 N.Y.S.2d 91, 337 N.E.2d 601 [1975] ; Russo v. Maier, 196 A.D.2d 720, 602 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept.1993] )." Family Court Act § 656 provides for the imposition of an order of probation with mandatory participation in programs of treatment, counseling and rehabilitation" (Matter of John A. v. Bridget M., 16 A.D.3d 324, 331, 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] ). Requiring the father to undergo monthly psychiatric monitoring as a component of visitation was not inappropriate (Matter of Mongiardo v. Mongiardo, 232 A.D.2d 741, 743, 649 N.Y.S.2d 45 [3d Dept.1996] ), in light of the recommendation of the forensic evaluator and other clinicians. The forensic evaluator's conclusion that the father's failure to disclose his extensive

  2. Southern v. Southern

    133 A.D.3d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    The mother attended to all of the child's medical needs, took him to his doctors' appointments, and enrolled him in a school that provided the requisite speech therapy (see Sendor v. Sendor, 93 A.D.3d 586, 587, 941 N.Y.S.2d 556 1st Dept.2012 ), whereas the father had no involvement in the child's education. The mother provided the more stable home environment for the child (see Matter of Castro v. Santiago, 176 A.D.2d 520, 575 N.Y.S.2d 9 1st Dept.1991 ). In contrast, the father has a history of aggressive behavior and excessive alcohol consumption, including two convictions of driving under the influence.

  3. Pape v. Pape

    233 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

    There is no merit to the contention of respondent that Family Court abused its discretion by denying his cross petition seeking custody of the parties' two children. Custody determinations are governed by the best interests of the child ( see, Matter of Roulo v Roulo, 201 AD2d 937). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the best interests of the children are served by the court's disposition, and there is no basis to disturb it ( see, Matter of Castro v Santiago, 176 AD2d 520). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J. — Custody.)