| Matter of Purse v Crocker |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04011 [95 AD3d 1216] |
| May 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ray D. Purse, Respondent, v RacquelCrocker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Moir & Saltz LLP, Greenlawn, N.Y. (Maria I. Moir of counsel), for respondent.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lechtrecker,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated June 23, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for solecustody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is thebest interests of the child (see Matter ofAwan v Awan, 63 AD3d 733, 734 [2009], citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; see also Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]).Among the factors to be considered when evaluating the child's best interests are " 'the parentalguidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent's ability to provide for the child'semotional and intellectual development, each parent's ability to provide for the child financially,the relative fitness of each parent, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have onthe child's relationship with the other parent' " (Craig v Williams-Craig, 61 AD3d 712, 712 [2009], quoting Matter of Berrouet v Greaves, 35AD3d 460, 461 [2006]; see Matterof McGovern v Lynch, 62 AD3d 712 [2009]; Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora, 60 AD3d 852 [2009]). In particular,interference with the relationship between a child and the noncustodial parent is "an act soinconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the[offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent" (Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 194[1981], affd 56 NY2d 938 [1982] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly determined that the bestinterests of the child would be served by awarding the father sole custody (see Matter of Caravella v Toale, 78AD3d 828 [2010]; Matter of Zeis vSlater, 57 AD3d 793 [2008]). The determination was supported by the record, includingthe testimony of the parties, which established, among other things, that the mother and herfamily deliberately interfered with the father's relationship with the parties' son by omitting thefather's name from the child's birth certificate, not including the father in the planning of thechild's christening and first birthday party, and seeking police intervention to prevent the fatherfrom gaining access to the child. Furthermore, despite the mother's contention that the father waspotentially violent and an unfit parent, the hearing testimony established that, prior [*2]to the commencement of this proceeding, the father had been,without incident, regularly taking care of the parties' son during the day while the mother was atwork. Since the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, itwill not be disturbed (see Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607 [2003]). Skelos, J.P.,Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.