The father next contends that granting the mother sole custody was not in the child's best interests and that Family Court erred in considering the father's family offenses in determining custody. Initially, we are unpersuaded by the father's argument that during the dispositional hearing Family Court impermissibly allowed testimony regarding the August 16, 2020 incident at the father's house without reopening the fact-finding hearing, as "the court has broad discretion to establish the parameters of proof and may consider any relevant matter in evaluating a child's best interests" ( Matter of Colona v. Colona, 125 A.D.3d 1123, 1125–1126, 4 N.Y.S.3d 333 [3d Dept. 2015] ; see Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1197, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [3d Dept. 2012] ). Turning to the merits, "[w]hen making an initial custody determination, Family Court's primary focus is the best interests of the child, which requires an analysis of such factors as each parent's relative fitness and past performance, ability to provide for the child's well-being and furnish a stable home environment, and willingness to foster relationships with the other parent" ( Matter of Zaida DD. v. Noel EE., 177 A.D.3d 1220, 1220, 115 N.Y.S.3d 472 [3d Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of William Z. v. Kimberly Z., 212 A.D.3d 1036, 1037–1038, 182 N.Y.S.3d 343 [3d Dept. 2023] ).
Family Court found that a change in circumstances existed – namely, that the father wanted to have a closer relationship with the child and the amount of parenting time provided in the January 2019 order was insufficient to develop that relationship. Even crediting the father's testimony, the father's mere dissatisfaction with the amount of parenting time provided in the January 2019 order and the desire for more time do not constitute a change in circumstances (see Matter of Clinton v. Backus, 160 A.D.3d 1073, 1075, 73 N.Y.S.3d 294 [2018] ; Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2012] ; Matter of Gridley v. Syrko, 50 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 857 N.Y.S.2d 838 [2008] ). Furthermore, the record fails to show any "new developments or changes that have occurred since the [January 2019] order was entered" ( Matter of Pierre N. v. Tasheca O., 173 A.D.3d 1408, 1408, 105 N.Y.S.3d 135 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 902, 2019 WL 5382487 [2019] ).
The mother's remaining allegations were either not borne out by the record or insufficient to establish the requisite change in circumstances. As such, Family Court properly dismissed the mother's amended petition ( Elizabeth NN. v. Hannah MM., 148 A.D.3d 1235, 1236–1237, 49 N.Y.S.3d 184 [2017] ; Matter of Gilbert v. Gilbert, 128 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 10 N.Y.S.3d 354 [2015] ; Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2012] ).ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
The petition, as well as the papers submitted by the mother in opposition to the motion to dismiss the petition, instead reflects her disappointment at the lack of telephone contact with the children and the purportedly poor quality of the educational records generated by their teachers. The November 2014 order does not require telephonic contact, however, nor does it specify how "meaningful" the available educational records must be. The mother's dissatisfaction with the stipulated order, without more, does not demonstrate a change in circumstances that would, in turn, warrant a best interests analysis (see Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2012] ; Matter of Gridley v. Syrko, 50 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 857 N.Y.S.2d 838 [2008] ).
Family Court, however, found that the father's testimony and conduct in court revealed insufficient improvement to constitute a change in circumstances. Accepting Family Court's credibility determination (see Matter of Trimble v. Trimble, 125 A.D.3d at 1154, 4 N.Y.S.3d 357 ; Matter of Cid v. DiSanto, 122 A.D.3d 1094, 1096, 997 N.Y.S.2d 168 [2014] ), we find that the father failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order (see Matter of Clarkson v. Clarkson, 98 A.D.3d 1208, 1209, 951 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2012] ; Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1198, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2012] ). To the extent that the father contends that the proof regarding the progress that he has made addressing his anger issues and traumatic brain injury establishes a sufficient change in circumstances, the record supports Family Court's finding that such testimony was incredible, erratic and inconsistent.
As to the father's various evidentiary issues, we find them to be lacking in merit. It is well settled that a court may take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings and orders ( see Matter of Anjoulic J., 18 A.D.3d 984, 986, 794 N.Y.S.2d 709 [2005] ) and is vested with “broad discretion in determining the parameters for proof to be accepted at the hearing” (Matter of Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1197, 951 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Moreover, although we are of the view that the limited proof received by Supreme Court with regard to events that predated the prior custody order was properly considered in the context of the best interests analysis ( cf. Matter of Baker v. Baker, 283 A.D.2d 730, 731, 724 N.Y.S.2d 131 [2001],lv.
Family Court found that a change in circumstances existed - namely, that the father wanted to have a closer relationship with the child and the amount of parenting time provided in the January 2019 order was insufficient to develop that relationship. Even crediting the father's testimony, the father's mere dissatisfaction with the amount of parenting time provided in the January 2019 order and the desire for more time do not constitute a change in circumstances (see Matter of Clinton v Backus, 160 A.D.3d 1073, 1075 [2018]; Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Gridley v Syrko, 50 A.D.3d 1560, 1561 [2008]). Furthermore, the record fails to show any "new developments or changes that have occurred since the [January 2019] order was entered" (Matter of Pierre N. v Tasheca O., 173 A.D.3d 1408, 1408 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 902 [2019]).