| Matter of Brown v Brown |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07534 [88 AD3d 1174] |
| October 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Robert D.C. Brown, Respondent, v Melissa Brown,Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] Mitch Kessler, Cohoes, for respondent. David E. Kapur, Endicott, attorney for the children.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.),entered April 21, 2010, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in twoproceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.
A 2007 order granted the parties joint legal custody of their two children (born in 2000 and2002), with primary physical custody to respondent (hereinafter the mother) and visitation topetitioner (hereinafter the father). The father filed a petition seeking primary physical custody.The mother cross-petitioned seeking supervision of the father's visits. Family Court held ahearing, then granted the father's petition and dismissed the mother's cross petition. The motherappeals. We affirm.
Family Court's order is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Evidenceregarding the mother's forms of punishment, which partially led to an indicated report ofinadequate guardianship, was sufficient to show a change of circumstances (see Matter of Terry I. v Barbara H., 69AD3d 1146, 1147 [2010]). The mother acknowledged that she put liquid dish soap in thechildren's mouths on multiple occasions to punish them. There was some [*2]proof that she or her boyfriend used enough soap to make bubblesflow from her son's mouth on one occasion. Rather than admit that this may not be appropriate,the mother testified that after speaking to a child protective caseworker, she switched to adifferent type of soap; the caseworker testified that she instructed the mother not to use soap aspunishment at all. Other forms of punishment that the mother used included making a child standin the corner for hours at a time and refusing to allow her daughter to speak for at least severaldays, possibly an entire week, with a monetary penalty imposed for every word that was uttered.The mother was not very engaged with the children, neglected their dental care, drove them inher vehicle when she did not have a driver's license and caused them to be late for school becauseshe overslept. Family Court considered these deficits in the mother's parenting abilities andweighed them against the father's strengths and weaknesses as a parent, finding that the children'sbest interests would be served by transferring physical custody to the father. Giving deference tothat court's credibility determinations and factual findings, which are supported by the record, thedecision to modify physical custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Paul T. v Ann-Marie T.,75 AD3d 788, 790-791 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 713 [2010]).
Peters, J.P., Spain, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.