Opinion
11-18-2016
In the Matter of Nicole M. HONSBERGER, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Joseph R. HONSBERGER, Respondent–Respondent. Susan Gray Jones, Esq., Attorney for the Child, Appellant.
Susan Gray Jones, Attorney for the Child, Canandaigua, Appellant Pro Se. Muldoon Getz & Reston, Rochester (Margaret M. Reston of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent. Whitcomb Law Firm, P.C., Canandaigua (David J. Whitcomb of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
Susan Gray Jones, Attorney for the Child, Canandaigua, Appellant Pro Se.
Muldoon Getz & Reston, Rochester (Margaret M. Reston of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Whitcomb Law Firm, P.C., Canandaigua (David J. Whitcomb of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Attorney for the Child (AFC) appeals from an order that awarded petitioner mother and respondent father joint custody of the subject child, with primary physical residence to the father and visitation to the mother. Contrary to the AFC's contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court's determination that awarding the father primary physical residence of the child is in the child's best interests (see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ). Although the court found that both parents were fit and that the mother had been the child's primary caretaker since birth, the record supports the court's determination that the father had the financial resources to support the child, had a stable residence with a room for the child, and had the “convincing edge” in fostering a relationship between the child and the mother (see Matter of Tuttle v. Tuttle, 137 A.D.3d 1725, 1726, 28 N.Y.S.3d 755 ; Matter of Martin J.R. v. Kimberli A.K., 45 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 845 N.Y.S.2d 890 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.