Opinion
13745-13746 Dkt. No. V-18606-17, V-19053-17 Case No. 2020-00528 2019-05434
05-04-2021
In the Matter of SCOTT W., Petitioner–Appellant, v. KRIZZIA G., Respondent–Respondent.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant. Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Law Office of Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for appellant.
Steven P. Forbes, Huntington, for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Moulton, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jacob K. Maeroff, Referee), entered on or about December 4, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the mother physical custody of the subject child and sole decision-making authority over the child's education and granted the father sole decision-making authority over the child's medical and dental care, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the grant to the father of sole decision-making authority over the child's medical and dental care and to grant such authority to the mother, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The record does not provide a sound basis for the grant of sole decision-making authority over the child's medical and dental care to the father. In light of the child's substantial and continuing behavioral issues in school and the resulting overlap between educational and medical issues, it makes better sense to have the mother in charge of both areas (see Rubin v. Della Salla, 107 A.D.3d 60, 65, 964 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2013] ; compare Ting Yi Chu v. Faye, 293 A.D.2d 425, 740 N.Y.S.2d 861 [1st Dept. 2002] [acrimonious relationship precluded joint authority over education]). The mother has demonstrated both the greater ability to address the child's educational, mental health, and social needs (see Matter of Celina S. v. Donald S., 133 A.D.3d 471, 20 N.Y.S.3d 355 [1st Dept. 2015] ) and the greater willingness and ability to cooperate with the other parent on the child's behalf (see Sendor v. Sendor, 93 A.D.3d 586, 941 N.Y.S.2d 556 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
The award of physical custody to the mother has a sound basis in the record. With the exception of a brief period in 2017, the mother has always been the child's primary caretaker, and nothing in the record warrants disturbing this stable custody arrangement (see Matter of Lawrence C. v. Anthea P., 79 A.D.3d 577, 578–79, 912 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1st Dept. 2010] ).