Opinion
No. 2790 Docket Nos. V09509/20 V04484/21 Case No. 2023-04453
10-15-2024
In the Matter of Michael L., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Lillian G. Respondent-Appellant.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York (Daniel X. Robinson of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel X. Robinson, New York (Daniel X. Robinson of counsel), for appellant.
Before: Singh, J.P., Gesmer, González, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer S. Burtt, Ref.), entered on or about July 17, 2023, which granted respondent mother and petitioner father joint legal and physical custody of the subject child, delegating final decision-making authority on educational issues to the father and medical issues to the mother and setting out a detailed parental access schedule, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court's conclusion that an award of joint legal and physical custody to the parents was in the best interests of the child, and its denial of each parent's request for sole legal and primary physical custody, has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171 [1982]; Rubin v Della Salla, 107 A.D.3d 60, 64 [1st Dept 2013]). The evidence presented at the hearing showed that the home environments of both parents were suitable and that both parents had the means to adequately provide for the child's material needs (see Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2dat 172). After considering the parents' relative strengths and weaknesses, the court appropriately fashioned a remedy that divided decision-making authority between the parents in a way that would maintain their respective roles in the child's life (see Shali D. v Victoria V., 172 A.D.3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2019]; Nimkoff v Nimkoff, 74 A.D.3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2010]). Furthermore, the court's remedy advances the child's best interests by granting the mother and the child's half-sibling the bulk of time with the child during the week, as well as one weekend a month, thus affording the children more time together than they had under the arrangement in place since in or about September 2021 (see Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 173).
The remainder of the mother's objections to joint custody are either unsupported in the record or unpersuasive, given the parties' competing representations and the court's conclusion that neither party was entirely credible, a determination that is entitled to deference (see Matter of Deanna V. v Michael C., 179 A.D.3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2020]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.