Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision reviews a Family Court order granting the father sole legal and physical custody of the parties' twin children and imposing virtual, supervised parental access for the mother. The mother appealed, challenging the custody determination, the conditions of her parental access, the court's refusal to order a forensic evaluation or in camera interview, and the denial of her motion to hold the father in contempt. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding that the custody and access determinations were supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and that the mother failed to prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court's award of sole legal and physical custody to the father was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record
- Whether the Family Court's determination that the mother's parental access should be virtual and supervised was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record
- Whether the mother established the elements of civil contempt against the father
Holdings
- The award of sole legal and physical custody to the father is affirmed because the Family Court's determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
- The determination of virtual and supervised parental access is affirmed because it is within the court's sound discretion and supported by the record.
- The contempt motion is denied because the mother failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father violated the July 25, 2022 order.
Key quotations
“Inasmuch as a court's custody determination is dependent in large part upon its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, the court's exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.” (at 1034)
“An application to punish a party for civil contempt "is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the movant bears the burden of proving the contempt by clear and convincing evidence".” (at 845-846)
Factual background
The parties are the parents of twin boys born in January 2010 who have lived with the father since 2018. The father filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody; the mother sought sole legal custody and requested that the father be held in contempt for allegedly violating a July 25, 2022 order concerning supervised access.
Procedural history
The Family Court, Queens County, issued an order on November 29, 2023 granting the father sole legal and physical custody, denying the mother's petition for sole legal custody, ordering virtual and supervised parental access, and denying the mother's contempt motion. The mother appealed the order.