Opinion
2022–05054 Docket No. V–5224–19
12-27-2023
In the Matter of Esther UPIA–PARHAM, respondent, v. Vaughan T. PARHAM, appellant.
Leighton M. Jackson, New York, NY, for appellant. David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for respondent. Marion C. Perry, New York, NY, attorney for the child.
Leighton M. Jackson, New York, NY, for appellant.
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, NY, for respondent.
Marion C. Perry, New York, NY, attorney for the child.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Nisha Menon, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated June 23, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, in effect, granted so much of the mother's petition as was for sole legal custody of the parties’ child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of one child, born in 2016. In February 2019, the mother filed a petition, inter alia, for joint legal custody of the child. Thereafter, the mother amended the petition so as to seek sole legal custody of the child. After a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody of the child, with parental access to the father. The father appeals from so much of the order as awarded sole legal custody to the mother.
"In a child custody dispute, the court's paramount concern is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 A.D.3d 814, 815, 183 N.Y.S.3d 759 ; see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Martinez v. Driscoll, 209 A.D.3d 653, 654, 175 N.Y.S.3d 334 ). "In determining the child's best interests, the court must consider, among other things, ‘(1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent's relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child's overall well being, and foster the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child's desires’ " ( Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 A.D.3d at 815, 183 N.Y.S.3d 759, quoting Matter of Brisard v. Brisard, 211 A.D.3d 838, 838, 179 N.Y.S.3d 765 ; see Matter of Copeland v. Brown, 189 A.D.3d 1396, 1397, 134 N.Y.S.3d 740 ). " ‘Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and parental access depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ " ( Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 A.D.3d at 815, 183 N.Y.S.3d 759, quoting Matter of Langenau v. Hargrove, 198 A.D.3d 650, 651–652, 156 N.Y.S.3d 37 ; see Matter of Martinez v. Driscoll, 209 A.D.3d at 655, 175 N.Y.S.3d 334 ).
Here, the Family Court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by awarding the mother sole legal custody of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 A.D.3d at 815, 183 N.Y.S.3d 759 ; Matter of Martinez v. Driscoll, 209 A.D.3d at 655, 175 N.Y.S.3d 334 ).
DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.