Opinion
2019–10249 Docket Nos. V–5549–16, V–5550–16, V–7828–16, V–7829–16
10-28-2020
In the Matter of Shaherah HARKLESS, appellant, v. Jorge SANTOS, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Jorge Santos, respondent, v. Shaherah Harkless, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, NY, for appellant. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Louise Feld and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Louise Feld and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Denise M. Valme–Lundy, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 14, 2019. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children, and denied the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' children.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child" ( Matter of McPherson v. McPherson, 139 A.D.3d 953, 953, 30 N.Y.S.3d 705 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Demelfi v. Fliedner, 172 A.D.3d 1206, 1207, 102 N.Y.S.3d 204 ). Here, the Family Court's determination that the subject children's best interests would be served by awarding the father sole legal and physical custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record, including evidence demonstrating that the father was a more fit parent and that he was willing to foster a relationship between the children and the mother (see Matter of Demelfi v. Fliedner, 172 A.D.3d at 1207, 102 N.Y.S.3d 204 ; Matter of Bowe v. Bowe, 124 A.D.3d 645, 647, 1 N.Y.S.3d 301 ).
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother's application to appoint a forensic evaluator to conduct evaluations of the parties and their children, as the court possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision regarding custody consistent with the children's best interests (see Cook v. Cook, 142 A.D.3d 530, 533, 36 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Matter of Keyes v. Watson, 133 A.D.3d 757, 758, 21 N.Y.S.3d 263 ).
The mother's contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed in totality, the record establishes that the mother received meaningful representation (see Matter of Haughton v. Tsang, 118 A.D.3d 883, 884, 987 N.Y.S.2d 244 ; Matter of Darrell W. [Tenika C.], 110 A.D.3d 1088, 1089, 974 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and BARROS, JJ., concur.