Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Family Court order denying the mother's petition for sole custody and awarding it to the father with parental access. The court found no due process violation in treating the filings as cross-custody petitions and upheld the custody determination based on the child's best interests, noting the mother's failure to inform the father of her relocation to Georgia weighed against her.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court violated the mother’s due‑process rights by awarding the father sole legal and physical custody
- Whether the Family Court’s determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record
Holdings
- The Family Court’s award of sole legal and physical custody to the father is affirmed because the mother was on notice, was given an opportunity to present evidence and cross‑examine, and the determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
Key quotations
“'A court deciding an initial petition for child custody must determine what is in the child's best interests' (Matter of Lawrence v. Mattry, 179 AD3d at 687).”
“'Rather, the relocation is but one factor among many for the Family Court to consider in determining what is in the best interests of the child' (Matter of Miller v. Perez, 232 AD3d at 899).”
Factual background
The parties, who were not married, are the parents of a child born in 2011. The mother was the primary caretaker living in Brooklyn; the father had parental access. In March 2020 the mother and child moved to Georgia without informing the father. The father later filed a petition for parental access, and the mother subsequently filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody. The Family Court awarded the father sole custody.
Procedural history
The Family Court, Kings County, denied the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody on June 16, 2023, awarding the father sole custody with parental access. The mother appealed the order.