Opinion
No. 586 CAF 21-01129
07-08-2022
IN THE MATTER OF ERIN M. SHEPHERD, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. THAD A. SHEPHERD, JR., RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. KAMAN BERLOVE LLP, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. ANDREW G. MORABITO, EAST ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
KAMAN BERLOVE LLP, ROCHESTER (GARY MULDOON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
ANDREW G. MORABITO, EAST ROCHESTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Richard M. Healy, J.), entered June 24, 2021 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted respondent-petitioner sole legal custody of the subject children.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner-respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, effectively granted the cross petition of respondent-petitioner father insofar as the cross petition sought sole custody of the parties' two minor children. We affirm. The mother's contention that Family Court should have ordered a forensic evaluation for consideration in the analysis of the best interests of the children is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Garrick v Simon, 197 A.D.3d 1316, 1316-1317 [2d Dept 2021]; see also Matter of Canfield v McCree, 90 A.D.3d 1653, 1654 [4th Dept 2011]).
We reject the mother's further contention that the court erred in granting the father sole custody of the subject children. "[A] court's determination regarding custody... issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight" (Matter of Saunders v Stull, 133 A.D.3d 1383, 1383 [4th Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and such a determination "will not be disturbed as long as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Sheridan v Sheridan, 129 A.D.3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2015]). Here, the court's custody determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Benson v Smith, 178 A.D.3d 1430, 1431 [4th Dept 2019]). Contrary to the mother's contention, joint custody was not appropriate given the parties' acrimonious relationship (see id.).