Opinion
2001-02719
Submitted June 13, 2002.
October 7, 2002.
In a family offense proceeding and two related child custody proceedings, the Law Guardian appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated February 23, 2001, as, after a hearing, granted sole custody of the parties' children to the father, and the mother separately appeals from the same order.
Arza Feldman, Hauppauge, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children, nonparty-appellant pro se.
Stephen A. Moser, East Meadow, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal by the mother is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c],[e]), without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the Law Guardian, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court's award of custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-95; Barbato v. Barbato, 264 A.D.2d 792). The record indicates that both children, one of whom has special needs, have thrived and advanced academically while in the father's temporary custody (see Coakley v. Goins, 240 A.D.2d 573). In contrast, the mother exhibited serious lapses of judgment concerning the care of the children (see Barbato v. Barbato, supra; Coakley v. Goins, supra), and violated a Family Court order prohibiting the parties from discussing this matter with the children (see Matter of Taylor v. Rivera, 261 A.D.2d 947, 948).
The Family Court was not obligated to accept the recommendations of the Law Guardian and the court-appointed forensic expert (see Matter of Maysonet v. Contreras, 290 A.D.2d 510; Matter of McCoy v. McCoy, 277 A.D.2d 384; Salerno v. Salerno, 273 A.D.2d 818; Berstell v. Krasa-Berstell, 272 A.D.2d 566; Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114). The Family Court explained its reasons for rejecting their recommendations and its reasoning is supported by the record (see Matter of Maysonet v. Contreras, supra; Matter of McCoy v. McCoy, supra; Berstell v. Krasa-Berstell, supra).
O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.