| Matter of Jules v Corriette |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06634 [76 AD3d 1016] |
| September 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lude Jules, Respondent, v UrsulaCorriette, Appellant. |
—[*1] James I. Gelb, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Anne E. Glatz and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County(Goldstein, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 22, 2009, as, after a hearing, awarded the father solecustody of the parties' child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner father and the appellant mother are the parents of a daughter born on May 26,2002. Following the child's birth, the parties resided together for approximately one month, afterwhich time, the child resided with the mother. In February 2004 the father commenced thiscustody and visitation proceeding. In late January 2006, the Family Court, upon finding, interalia, that the mother had repeatedly and intentionally violated court orders and had interferedwith the father's relationship with the child, awarded temporary custody of the child to the father,with visitation to the mother. In May 2006, as a result of the mother's continued lack ofcompliance with certain terms of the January 2006 order, the Family Court suspended hervisitation and then allowed it to resume on a supervised basis. In April 2007, the mother took thechild to the West Indies for 10 days without notifying the father or seeking permission from theFamily Court. The father moved, among other things, to hold the mother in civil contempt forviolating numerous Family Court orders. In an order dated June 15, 2007, the Family Court, interalia, granted that branch of the father's motion which was to hold the mother in civil contempt.That order was affirmed by this Court (see Matter of Jules v Corriette, 55 AD3d 732 [2008]). By orderdated July 22, 2009, the Family Court, after conducting a hearing at which witnesses for bothparties testified, awarded sole custody to the father. The mother appeals, and we affirm the orderinsofar as appealed from.
In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is thebest interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; [*2]Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 93 [1982]). Thechild's best interests lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents (see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d837, 839 [2008]), and the custodial parent has a duty to protect and nurture the child'srelationship with the noncustodial parent and to ensure access (see Daghir v Daghir, 82AD2d 191, 194-195 [1981], affd 56 NY2d 938 [1982]). Therefore, a court may properlyconsider the effect that an award of custody to one parent might have on the child's relationshipwith the other parent (see Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]). "[I]nasmuch ascustody determinations depend in large part on an assessment of the character and credibility ofthe parties and witnesses, the hearing court's findings will not be disturbed unless they lack asound and substantial basis in the record" (Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot, 74 AD3d 935, 936 [2010]; seeEschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173). Here, in light of the evidence demonstrating themother's continued interference with the father-child relationship, and all other relevant evidence,the Family Court's determination to award sole custody of the parties' daughter to the father has asound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, that determination will not be disturbed. Dillon,J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.