| Matter of Calandresa v Calandresa |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03648 [62 AD3d 1055] |
| May 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Robert Calandresa, Respondent, v Alice E.Calandresa, Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] Robert Calandresa, Oneonta, respondent pro se. Rosemarie Richards, Law Guardian, South New Berlin.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.),entered June 25, 2008, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in twoproceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.
Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents ofone child (born in 1997). Pursuant to a consent order that was incorporated into their judgmentof divorce in 2006, the parties shared joint custody of their daughter, with the mother havingprimary physical custody. In June 2007, the father commenced the first of these proceedingsseeking sole custody of the child, alleging, among other things, that the mother had failed toabide by the terms of the custody order. The mother then cross-petitioned, also seeking solecustody of the child. Following a fact-finding hearing, as well as a Lincoln hearing,Family Court determined that the animosity between the parties rendered a joint custodyarrangement unworkable, thereby constituting a substantial change in circumstances warrantinga modification of the custody order, and granted the father's petition. While agreeing that theanimosity between the parties warranted a modification of the custody order, the mothernevertheless appeals, contending that sole custody should have been granted to her.[*2]
"The primary consideration in any custody matter is thebest interests of the child" (Matter ofEck v Eck, 57 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2008] [citation omitted]). Based upon our review ofthe record, and according the appropriate deference to the credibility assessments made byFamily Court (see id. at 1244; Matter of Bedard v Baker, 40 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2007]), we findno basis upon which to disturb Family Court's determination to award sole custody to the father.
In evaluating the best interests of the child, a court must consider numerous factors,including the quality of each parent's home environments, their past performance and stability,and each parent's relative fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotionaldevelopment (see Matter of Goldsmithv Goldsmith, 50 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2008]; Matter of Bedard v Baker, 40 AD3dat 1165). Here, it was revealed that the father continued to reside in the marital home, where thechild maintains the room that she has had since infancy. To the contrary, the motherdemonstrated a level of instability in that she has had numerous residences since the parties'divorce and, at the time of the hearing, was planning yet another move. Although Family Courtfound both parents to be equally financially capable of taking care of the child, it found that thefather's home was more appropriate to meet the child's needs. For example, the house that themother planned to move into with her boyfriend had been unfinished and open to the elementsfor at least five years. Although it was equipped with running water, it had no windows, interiorwalls or a kitchen. The mother testified that she planned to live in the house as she worked tocomplete it, but that it could take five or six months to finish. The house was also located in adifferent town and would require the child to change school districts, a fact with which themother appeared to be unconcerned.
Family Court also determined that the mother was not as willing as the father to encouragethe child to maintain a relationship with the other parent. Specifically, Family Court found thatthe mother had withheld visitation from the father as retaliation for perceived wrongs to her, andthat she often responded negatively to the father to the detriment of the child. Finally, FamilyCourt noted that the mother evinced a lack of consideration for the child's welfare by allowingher boyfriend to frequently smoke cigarettes in the child's presence and cited the unrefutedtestimony that the mother also allowed the boyfriend to drink excessive amounts of beer andother alcohol in the home.
Based on the foregoing, we find that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record tosupport Family Court's determination that it was in the child's best interest to award sole custodyto the father (see Matter of Bedard v Baker, 40 AD3d at 1165; Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d1152, 1153 [2006]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.