Opinion
June 23, 1998
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Sara Schechter, J.).
While the authority of this Court in custody matters is as broad as that of the trial courts ( see, Matter of Louise E. S. v. W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946, 947), when custody determinations are addressed on appeal, the findings of the trial court are treated with great respect ( Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 A.D.2d 499, 500). The trial court is best situated to assess both the witnesses' credibility and the parties' respective personalities, characters and temperaments ( Leistner v. Leistner, supra). Therefore, where the conclusion of the trial court is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed ( Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 164 A.D.2d 906, 908, lv dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 873; Matter of Gago v. Acevedo, 214 A.D.2d 565, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 706).
The Family Court's determination appropriately considered the factors bearing upon the issue of custody, including evidence of a strong bond between the child and her half-siblings through respondent, and the recommendation of a psychologist retained by the child's Law Guardian who emphasized the need for continuity of the home environment where the child has thrived ( see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra, at 173-174). The evidence showed that the respondent mother is a competent and decent parent, attuned and attached to her child.
We take note, however, of the disturbing evidence that the respondent mother initially failed to recognize the importance of the petitioner fathers role in their child's life and the potential effects of his absence of similar concern is the showing that respondent did nothing to encourage any of her other children to have relationships with their fathers.
The mother should be aware that a change of custody is appropriate if her conduct as custodial parent deliberately frustrates, denies, or interferes with the other parent's visitation rights ( Chapin v. Chapin, 184 A.D.2d 1082; Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, supra). "Interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by the custodial parent is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child that it raises, by itself, a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent" ( Matter of Gago v. Acevedo, supra, at 566; see, Leistner v. Leistner, supra, at 500).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.