| Matter of Howden v Keeler |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04844 [85 AD3d 1561] |
| June 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Curtis P. Howden, Respondent, v Naomi R. Keeler,Appellant. |
—[*1] Duke Law Firm, P.C., Lakeville (Susan K. Duke of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Bonita Stubblefield, Attorney for the Child, Piffard, for Gwyneth H.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Lynn L. Hartley, J.H.O.),entered March 16, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, interalia, granted sole custody of the parties' child to petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order granting the father's petitionseeking sole custody of the parties' child. Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Courtproperly concluded that the father " 'ma[de] a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change incircumstances to require a hearing on the issue whether the existing custody order should bemodified' " (Matter of Hughes vDavis, 68 AD3d 1674, 1675 [2009]). Here, the mother admitted that she withheld thechild from the father, and the record establishes that she made numerous unfounded allegationsof sexual abuse against the father (seee.g. Matter of Tyrone W. v Dawn M.P., 27 AD3d 1147 [2006], lv denied 7NY3d 705 [2006]; Matter of Darla N. v Christine N. [appeal No. 2], 289 AD2d 1012[2001]).
We further conclude that the court properly determined that it was in the best interests of thechild to award the father sole custody. The parties stipulated to the prior custody arrangementapproximately two years and four months prior to the commencement of this proceeding.Although "a long-term custodial arrangement established by agreement should [continue] 'unlessit is demonstrated that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit' " (Fox v Fox, 177AD2d 209, 211 [1992]), " '[a] concerted effort by one parent to interfere with the other parent'scontact with the child is so inimical to the best interests of the child . . . as to, perse, raise a strong probability that [the interfering parent] is unfit to act as custodial parent' " (Matter of Amanda B. v Anthony B., 13AD3d 1126, 1127 [2004]). In addition to the mother's admissions with respect to, inter alia,her [*2]unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father,the record establishes that the mother subjected the child to unnecessary medicalexaminations. Thus, the court's custody determination, "based upon [its] first-handassessment of the credibility of the witnesses" (Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2007][internal quotation marks omitted]), has a sound and substantial basis in the record and shouldnot be disturbed. Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Lindley, Green and Gorski, JJ.