Matter of Carrington v Fowler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06364 [222 AD3d 747]
December 13, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
In the Matter of Javante Carrington, Respondent,
v
Latonza Fowler, Appellant.
Salvatore C. Adamo, New York, NY, for appellant.
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.
Paul I. Weinberger, Poughkeepsie, NY, attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated December 1, 2022. The order, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the parties’ child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father and the mother have one child together. In July 2021, the father commenced this proceeding for sole custody of the child, who was born in November 2008, alleging, inter alia, that a Georgia state court had removed the child from the mother’s custody and issued an order of protection against her for allegedly abusing the child, resulting in the mother’s arrest. After a hearing, the Family Court granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the child. The mother appeals.
In a child custody case, the court’s paramount concern is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Hogan v Hogan , 159 AD3d 679 , 680 [2018]; Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d 746 , 747 [2016]; Matter of Hutchinson v Johnson , 134 AD3d 1115 , 1116 [2015]). In determining what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests, the court should consider several factors, including “the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent” ( Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d at 747 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hogan v Hogan , 159 AD3d at 680-681; Matter of Hutchinson v Johnson , 134 AD3d at 1116). In addition, the court should consider the child’s wishes, viewed in light of the age and maturity of the child ( see Hogan v Hogan , 159 AD3d at 681; Matter of Baptiste v Gregoire , 140 AD3d at 747; Matter of Hutchinson v Johnson , 134 AD3d at 1116). Insofar as custody determinations largely turn on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the hearing court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Gulzar v Gulzar , 173 AD3d 1183 , 1184 [2019]; [*2] Hogan v Hogan , 159 AD3d at 681; Matter of Gorsky v Kessler , 78 AD3d 834 , 835 [2010]).
Here, contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s determination awarding sole custody of the child to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed. The record established that the mother had struck the child with a belt on multiple occasions and, on at least one occasion, with a cord, that the child was properly cared for and doing well in school while in the father’s care, and that the child wished to reside with the father ( see Hogan v Hogan , 159 AD3d at 681; Matter of Hutchinson v Johnson , 134 AD3d at 1117; cf. Matter of Marrero v Centeno , 71 AD3d 771 , 773-774 [2010]). Brathwaite Nelson, J.P., Wooten, Wan and Love, JJ., concur..