In Matter of G* v I*, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Dutchess County Family Court order awarding joint legal custody to both parents but granting sole physical custody of the child to the father.
The parties, who were never married, share a child born in 2014. In 2021, the mother allegedly relocated with the child from New York to Maine without the father’s consent. This unilateral move became a pivotal factor in the custody dispute. By December 2022, the father had been awarded temporary physical custody, and the child had since resided with him in New York.
Following a full hearing, the Family Court concluded that the father was better positioned to provide a stable environment and to support the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. On appeal, the AD2 deferred to the Family Court’s credibility assessments and found that its determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court emphasized that custody decisions hinge not only on logistical considerations but also on the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents.
The mother’s argument that the court erred by not conducting an in camera interview with the then eight-year-old child was rejected. The appellate court noted that such interviews are discretionary, particularly when the child is young and no party—including the child’s attorney—requested one. The court found no abuse of discretion in omitting the interview.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces the principle that stability, parental cooperation, and the ability to foster a healthy co-parenting dynamic are central to custody determinations.
She packed the bags, but he unpacked the facts ...
# # #
DECISION