Matter of Jacklyn PP. v. Jonathan QQ.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding the father committed stalking in the third and fourth degrees, issuing a two-year order of protection, and awarding the mother sole legal and primary physical custody. The court held that the evidence supported the family-offense findings and that the parents' inability to communicate made joint custody inappropriate. The court also rejected the father's claims concerning the custody hearing, witness testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. A fair preponderance of the evidence supported findings that the father committed stalking in the third degree and stalking in the fourth degree.
2. Family Court properly granted the mother a two-year stay-away order of protection.
3. Family Court did not abuse its discretion by considering testimony regarding the August 16, 2020 incident at the dispositional hearing without reopening the fact-finding hearing.
4. Family Court properly awarded the mother sole legal and primary physical custody because the father's proven family offenses and the parties' inability to communicate made joint custody infeasible and the custody determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record.
5. The father's challenge to the exclusion of testimony from his girlfriend and mother was unpreserved because he did not make a timely objection during the hearing.
6. The father received meaningful representation and therefore failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence supported Family Court's finding that the father committed the family offenses of stalking in the third and fourth degrees.
2. Whether Family Court properly issued a two-year stay-away order of protection.
3. Whether Family Court properly considered evidence of the August 16, 2020 incident at the dispositional hearing without reopening the fact-finding hearing.
4. Whether Family Court's award of sole legal and primary physical custody to the mother was in the child's best interests.
5. Whether the father's challenge to the exclusion of testimony from his girlfriend and mother was preserved.
6. Whether the father was deprived of meaningful representation by counsel's failure to call certain witnesses, introduce documentary evidence, or file a petition.

Disposition

affirmed