KW v. WB, 2023 NY Slip Op 51095 - West. Co. Supreme Court 2023:
"ANAR RATHOD PATEL, J.
The Court presided over an eleven (11)-day non-jury trial in this
matter on the following dates: April 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20,
27, and 28, 2023, as to the relief sought in Defendant's Motion Sequence
Numbers 20, 24, and 27, seeking, inter alia, sole legal and
physical custody of the parties' children, the right to travel with the
children without the consent of Plaintiff and approval of the Court, and
that Plaintiff be held in contempt of Court for violation of the
parties' stipulation as to custody and access. Plaintiff was represented
by [Redacted], Esq. and [Redacted], Esq. of the law firm of [Redacted][1]; Defendant was represented by [Redacted], Esq.; the Children were represented by Attorney for the Children [Redacted], Esq.
The Court bifurcated the trial as to the issues of custody, access,
international travel, and contempt, and the financial issues related to
any modification of child support and counsel fees. The Court refers to
its prior Decision and Order on Motion Sequence Number 24 regarding
international travel, rendered from the bench and on the record in open
court on June 2, 2023, whereby the Court granted Defendant's motion
seeking modification of the parties' March 2019 Stipulation, and Revised
Judgment of Divorce. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 445. Accordingly, this
Decision After Trial addresses Motion Sequence Numbers 20 and 27 as
related to the issues of custody and access.
Parties filed the consolidated trial transcripts ("Tr.") on May 30, 2023, and post-trial memoranda on July 6 and 7, 2023. See
NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 388, 436-428. After considering the procedural history
of this case, the papers in support of and in opposition to Motion
Sequence Numbers 20 and 27 (see NYSECF Doc. Nos. 3-48, 177-199,
206-213, 221, 223-228), the testimony of the parties in addition to the
twelve (12) witnesses at trial, the documents and audio recordings
admitted into evidence, and the post-trial submissions, the Court hereby
makes the following findings of fact and reaches the following
conclusions of law.
Relevant Factual and Procedural History
The parties were married on June 3, 2015, and are the parents of
O.B., born [Redacted], 2013, and A.B., born [Redacted], 2015
(collectively, the "Children"). Plaintiff commenced a divorce proceeding
by the filing of a Summons and Complaint on July 14, 2017. Pursuant to
the parties' "Stipulation and Order Regarding Custody, Access and Child
Support," dated March 22, 2019 ("March 2019 Stipulation"), the parties
agreed that Plaintiff Mother would have custody of the Children, who
would reside primarily with Plaintiff. Both parties agreed to consult
each other as to decisions on major issues affecting the Children's
health, education, religion, and general welfare, with Plaintiff
retaining final decision-making authority. Ct. Ex. 1 (March 2019
Stipulation) at 4. The parties further recognized and agreed that their
Children shall be afforded certain rights including, among others: "the
right not to be told details to the underlying litigation between the
parties"; "the right not to have a parent denigrate or otherwise engage
in conduct or words intended to cause the child(ren) to hold the other
party in lower esteem"; "the right to be free of being told untruths to
or about the other party"; and "the right to be insulated from the
conflicts and tactics by and between the parties." Id. at 9. The
parties further agreed to a graduated access schedule as to Defendant
whereby, commencing July 1, 2019, Defendant would enjoy access time with
the Children on alternating weekends, Wednesday overnights, and
alternating Monday night dinners. Id. at 11.
The parties were divorced by Revised Judgment of Divorce dated April
24, 2019, which incorporated but did not merge the March 2019
Stipulation. Six (6) different judges have presided over this case
during the past approximately five (5) years, including this Court
(Patel, J.), and—to date—thirty-five (35) motions have been filed.
May 26, 2019 Child Protective Services ("CPS") Report
On May 26, 2019, approximately one month after the Revised Judgment
of Divorce was entered, Plaintiff filed a report with CPS alleging that
(a) Defendant failed to properly supervise the Children during the
weekend of May 17, 2019, and (b) Defendant scrubs O.B.'s penis too
roughly when bathing him resulting in O.B. having contracted four (4)
penis infections while in Defendant's care. Def. Ex. C (5/26/19 Office
of Children and Family Services ("OCFS") Case No. 27287517). At the time
of this report, O.B. was five years old and A.B. was three years old.
The Westchester County Department of Social Services ("DSS") assigned
the investigation to case worker [Redacted], who met in person with
Plaintiff on May 28, 2019, at which time the case notes state the
following:
• "Mother stated that there was a history of [domestic violence ("DV")] which is part of the reason for the divorce"
• "Mother stated the children stated that the father was
sleeping, and they walked out of the house and a neighbor brought them
inside. Mother stated that she didn't know what to do, so she had a
conversation with her therapist and the therapist reported that it is
for her to call CPS"
• "Mother stated that in addition to that, the children visit with the father for weekend visits [sic] and it appears that [O.B.] has infection or irritation in the penis"
• "Mother stated her daughter is reported to be using the bathroom too much so took [sic] [A.B.] to urologist and [sic]
they found her to be medically clear. Mother stated that all the
medical professionals" had told her that "it could be just stress
related that she [sic] is using the bathroom too much and the routine of her visiting her dad"
• "In addition, mother stated that father has mental health issues that father is reported to be diagnosed with bipolar"
Id. The day before making the report to CPS, Plaintiff brought
O.B. to [Redacted] complaining of "painful penis." Def. Ex. DD
([Redacted] Medical Records, O.B.). O.B. was seen by [Redacted], D.O.
The visit history notes state, "Mom first noticed this 3 days ago. It
was the day she picked him up from his dad's house, and wondered if dad
washed him too [sic] hard in the bath." The [Redacted] records
indicate that O.B. had a history of penis infections starting in/around
January 2018. By e-mail dated May 30, 2019, Plaintiff provided her
consent to [Redacted] personnel to speak with "social services" about
the Children's health. Id.
Additionally, prior to making the report to CPS, Plaintiff brought
A.B. to [Redacted] on May 8, 2019, complaining of "frequent urination."
Def. Ex. DE ([Redacted] Medical Records, A.B.). A.B. was seen by
[Redacted], D.O. The visit history notes state, "[p]atient has been
having episodes of frequent urination in school and at home for the last
few weeks mother reports she does not think the frequent urination is
behavioral." Id. The records further indicate that [Redacted] "would not treat for a UTI [Urinary Tract Infection] at this point." Id.
Thereafter, on May 20, 2019, Plaintiff brought A.B. to [Redacted], P.C.
The reason for the appointment was "urinary frequency" and the history
of present illness is described as "about two weeks ago she developed
frequency and urgency (after being with father over a weekend)." Id. The urinalysis test did not show evidence of a urinary tract infection.
The OCFS file indicates that, during the course of the investigation,
CPS case workers met with the parties (separately) multiple times, the
Children, the daycare provider for A.B. ([Redacted]), the [Redacted]
treating pediatrician ([Redacted]), the nurse for the Children's
pediatrician ([Redacted]), Defendant's therapist ([Redacted]), and the
[Redacted] Police Department; CPS also reviewed a letter from
Plaintiff's therapist ([Redacted]). Regarding the allegation of failure
to supervise, the case notes indicate that Defendant denied that he fell
asleep, stated that he and the Children were "getting ready to go
outside to ride a bike," but that he was using the bathroom and the
Children went outside ahead of him. Id. He informed the case
worker that he looked at the lock and, realizing that O.B. was tall
enough to reach the lock, he went to the store to purchase a lock with a
chain and a child safety lock, installed the locks, and also installed
additional child safety locks throughout his home—as verified by the
case worker. Id. Regarding O.B.'s penis infections, the case
notes indicate that Defendant informed the case worker that he had
communicated previously with O.B.'s pediatrician, who provided a soap
and cream for O.B. Id. Defendant denied the history of DV and of mental illness. Id.
The CPS investigation was completed on July 18, 2019. By letter dated
August 7, 2019 from OCFS to Defendant, Plaintiff's report was
determined to be "unfounded," meaning that "CPS did not find believable
proof (credible evidence) that a child was abused or maltreated." Def.
Ex. B1 (8/7/19 OCFS Letter).
September 10, 2019 CPS Report
On September 10, 2019, [Redacted] filed a report with CPS to report
the allegation that Defendant "put his fingers in his son, [O.B.'s]
buttocks. The child asked his father not to do this, but father
continued." Def. Ex. G (9/10/19 OCFS Case No. 2735817). The [Redacted]
records for this visit indicate that Plaintiff brought O.B. for
treatment on September 10, and Plaintiff stated to [Redacted] in private
the following:
• "children were returned from school after a weekend with the children's father"
• "[O.B.] told mom, that according to mom, that `Pappa had put his finger in my butt for a long time.'"
• "mom states that, one time in the past, [O.B.] would not
sit in the bath after a weekend with dad though he did not tell mom why"
• "mom states that [O.B.] has had penis infections in the
past that mom states that she felt were due to dad scrubbing too hard on
the penis area"
• "mom states that dad was sexually abused by dad's mom as a child"
Def. Ex. DD. The records indicate that [Redacted], a mandatory
reporter, reported the incident to CPS and was advised that CPS would
"look into the accusation in conjunction with the concurrent custody
battle going on." Id.
The call narrative included in the OCFS file states that Plaintiff
brought O.B. to [Redacted] on September 10, and he was seen by
[Redacted]. "The child told mother the above information and mother
reported this today to the doctor." Def. Ex. G. On the same day, the
case worker met with Plaintiff who stated that, on the prior day, she
was giving O.B. a bath and observed that he could not sit still in the
bathtub, and sat on his side. According to Plaintiff, "[O.B.] disclosed
that his father has been inserting his fingers in his buttocks." Id.
Plaintiff indicated that she would file a police report with the
[Redacted] Police Department in order to initiate a referral to the
Child Advocacy Center (CAC). The narrative further states that until the
forensic interview of O.B. is completed, "the visits with the father
will discontinue." Id.
On September 11, Plaintiff filed an incident report with the
[Redacted] Police Department. Def. Ex. D1 ([Redacted] Police Department
Records). The investigation report states that Plaintiff "believes her
ex-husband, [Redacted], might have sexually abused their 5 year old son
[O.B.]." Id.
On September 13, CAC conducted an interview of O.B. and, per the OCFS
Investigation Conclusion Narrative, O.B. did not make any disclosure
and stated that "my mother told me to say [sic] that" and "Dad
did not really poke my butt." Def. Ex. DD. The [Redacted] Police
Department Investigative Report states that, "Throughout the interview
[O.B.] changed his story a few times from his mom told him to say
certain things to she didn't tell him." Def. Ex. D1. Plaintiff was
thereafter informed by the police detective that criminal charges
against Defendant would not be pursued. Id.
September 23, 2019 CPS Report
On September 23, 2019, [Redacted], Owner of [Redacted] Daycare, filed
a report with CPS to report the allegation that Defendant was sexually
abusing the parties' daughter, A.B. Def. Ex. G. The September 20 and 23
CPS reports were consolidated into one investigation. The call narrative
included in the OCFS file states that the source—[Redacted]—indicated
that Defendant told her on September 20 that "mother told him that A.B.
stated: `papa put his fingers in my vagina'." Id. Defendant
Father told [Redacted] that A.B. revealed this information to Plaintiff
Mother on September 18, and Defendant then told [Redacted] that should
A.B. repeat such statements that she should let Defendant know so that
he could alert his attorney. [Redacted] further reported that A.B. was
"drawing boobies," and when asked about the drawing, A.B. stated "my
mommy told me to draw boobies." Id.
On October 2, CAC conducted a forensic interview of A.B., at which no
disclosure of sexual abuse was made. Accordingly, Plaintiff was
informed that the allegation of sexual abuse as to A.B. was
unsubstantiated.
Although not directly relevant to the allegations underlying the
September 23 CPS Report, the case notes reference an incident whereby,
on October 2, Defendant reported to the case worker that A.B. told him
that a boy at daycare "put a finger in her vagina," and that Defendant
stated, "you see how my ex-wife is manipulating my children and putting
things in their mind." Id. The next day, October 3, [Redacted]
reported to the case worker that Defendant came to the daycare that day
and "loudly he blamed the Day Care for having a boy who is touching his
daughter [A.B.'s] vagina." Id. [Redacted] further stated that
because Defendant is behind on daycare payments and is late to pick
A.B., the child will not be attending after next week. Following this
interaction, on October 4, Plaintiff called the case worker, referenced
the incident from the prior day involving Defendant and [Redacted], and
said "I'm afraid to send my children this weekend with him." Id.
The OCFS file indicates that, during the course of the investigation,
CPS case workers met with the parties (separately) multiple times, the
Children, [Redacted], and [Redacted]. The case notes indicate, in
addition to the aforementioned, that Plaintiff reported that Defendant
was violent and "diagnosed with bipolar disorder." Id.
The investigation of the September reports was completed on October
21, 2019. By letter dated November 22, 2019 from OCFS to Defendant, the
reports were determined to be "unfounded," meaning that "CPS did not
find believable proof (credible evidence) that a child was abused or
maltreated." See Ct. Ex. 3 (Mot. Seq. No. 20) at Ex. E (11/22/19 OCFS Letter).
In response to the allegations made by Plaintiff against Defendant,
Defendant filed a criminal complaint against Plaintiff on November 20,
2019, with the [Redacted] Police Department alleging that Plaintiff made
false allegations against him including "making false reports to CPS
alleging abuse by him towards their children." Def. I2 ([Redacted]
Police Department Records). He later filed a civil suit on December 20,
2019, alleging that Plaintiff falsely accused him of sexually abusing
their children and coaching the Children to further her accusations. Ct.
Ex. 24 (12/20/19 Civil Suit).
The Parties' Relevant Post-Judgment Motions
Against the backdrop of the CPS investigations, on October 4, 2019,
Plaintiff prevented Defendant from exercising his weekend access with
the Children. Def. Ex. B (12/28/22 Revised Notice to Admit). On October
7, Defendant filed an emergency Order to Show Cause seeking, inter alia,
make-up parenting time from the missed October 4-7 weekend. Ct. Ex. 29
(10/7/19 Mot. Seq. No. 11). On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an order
to show cause seeking, inter alia, that the Court enjoin
Defendant from having unsupervised access with the Children, direct an
updated forensic evaluation, and appoint an Attorney for the Children.
Ct. Ex. 30 (10/8/19 Mot. Seq. No. 12). The Court granted Plaintiff's
application to enjoin Defendant from having unsupervised visits with the
Children, and directed that Supervised Visitation Experts (SVE)
supervise vitiation ("October 8 Order"). On October 22, Defendant moved
by cross-motion seeking, inter alia, to vacate the Court's prior
order directing supervised access and granting Defendant temporary legal
and physical custody of the Children. Ct. Ex. 31 (10/22/19 Mot. Seq.
No. 13).
Defendant did not have access with the Children from October 4 until
November 2—the date of the first supervised visit. Ct. Ex.16 (11/24/19
SVE Report). The observation narrative of the November 2 visit states,
"Children ran to their father and greeted him warmly [with] lots of hugs
and kisses," and the Children "did not want to leave." Id. at 4. O.B. asked repeatedly "Are you our dad?" and A.B. asked "Are you our real dad?" Id.
The SVE Report indicates that additional supervised visits occurred on
November 6, 9, 16, 20, and 23, 2019, and without incident.
On November 15, Plaintiff moved by order to show cause seeking, inter alia,
to quash subpoenas issued by Defendant's counsel to CAC and CPS
regarding the May and September 2019 investigations. Ct. Ex. 32
(11/15/19 Mot. Seq. No. 15).
On November 27, the parties appeared before the Hon. Lewis J. Lubell,
at which time Defendant consented—pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion
Sequence Number 12—to a limited mental health evaluation conducted by
[Redacted] to be completed on an expedited basis by December 20. See
Ct. Ex. 3 (Mot. Seq. No. 20) at Ex. J (11/27/19 Tr.). On December
19—after [Redacted] submitted his report to the Court, Plaintiff filed
an order to show cause seeking to stay or otherwise enjoin the mental
health evaluation. Ct. Ex. 33 (12/19/19 Mot. Seq. No. 16). On December
24, Defendant filed an emergency order to show cause seeking a
modification of the October 8 Order to reinstate unsupervised access of
Defendant commencing during the Christmas holiday. Ct. Ex. 34 (12/24/19
Mot. Seq. No. 17). Defendant further sought an order directing the
Westchester County Attorney and CPS to provide complete records of the
May and September 2019 CPS investigations to the Court for in camera review. Id.
On December 24, pursuant to the Court's recommendation, Defendant
arranged for his father and sister, who traveled from Europe, to
supervise the visits; Plaintiff arranged for the Children's babysitter
to also supervise the visits.
The parties appeared before Judge Lubell on January 14, 2020, at
which time the Court terminated [Redacted]'s appointment, terminated the
October 8 Order regarding supervised visitation, and implemented a
temporary, limited access schedule whereby Defendant would have one
overnight with the Children every two weeks, Wednesday evening access,
and every other Saturday and Sunday access with the Children ("January
14 Order"). See Ct. Ex. 35 (1/28/20 Mot. Seq. No. 18) at 4; see also Ct. Ex. 3 (Mot. Seq. No. 20) at Ex. M (1/14/20 Tr.).
On January 27, Defendant filed an order to show cause seeking to hold
Plaintiff in contempt for violation of the January 14 Order and for an
order appointing [Redacted] as neutral forensic evaluator to conduct an
evaluation of both parties. Ct. Ex. 35 (1/28/20 Mot. Seq. No. 18).
Defendant's Affidavit details his access time with the Children from the
period of October 8, 2019 (when Plaintiff filed Mot. Seq. No. 12)
through January 15, 2020, and concludes that "I have only been able to
enjoy my entire designated access time with our children five (5) times
of the twenty-nine (29) visits." Id. at 7.
In February 2020, the case was re-assigned to the Hon. David F.
Everett. At the February 13 appearance, through her counsel, Plaintiff
maintained that Defendant was sexually abused by his mother from the
time he was eight until fourteen (14) years old, and said abuse "might
have risen to the level of intercourse." Ct. Ex. 3 (Mot. Seq. No. 20) at
Ex. Q (2/13/20 Tr. at 9:21-10:4). Plaintiff's counsel described the
alleged incidents that prompted the CPS investigations and stated, "On
none of these occasions did my client call CPS or try to have the visits
changed or curtail his visits." Id. at 11:13-15.
On or about March 9, the Court (Everett, J.) appointed [Redacted] to
conduct an expedited evaluation of Defendant only. [Redacted] submitted
the "Forensic Mental Health Evaluation" on June 9 ("[Redacted] Report").
Ct. Ex. 17 (6/9/20 [Redacted] Report). On June 26, 2020, Defendant's
full access, as per the March 2019 Stipulation, was restored. See Ct. Ex. 3 (Mot. Seq. No. 20) at 17.
On September 11, Defendant filed the first of the three instant
motions, Motion Sequence Number 20, to modify custody and child support.
Ct. Ex. 3. On October 13, Plaintiff moved by order to show cause
seeking to find Defendant in default for failure to pay child support
and an award of attorney's fees. NYSCEF Doc. No. 70 (11/6/20 Mot. Seq.
No. 21). The Court granted Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees
in light of the anticipated costs and fees associated with Defendant's
application to modify the custody provisions of the March 2019
Stipulation, and referred the issue of support arrears to a previously
ordered custody hearing. NYSCEF Doc. No. 101 (2/3/21 Decision and
Order).
On October 28, 2020, the Court appointed [Redacted], Esq. as
Attorney for the Children ("AFC"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 68 (10/28/20 Order).
On November 20, 2020, the Court appointed [Redacted] as neutral forensic
evaluator to conduct an evaluation of the parties and the Children as
to issues of custody, visitation/access, decision making, and
interference with parental rights. NYSCEF Doc. No. 73 (11/20/20 Order).
For reasons unknown to this Court, on January 20, 2021, the Court
appointed [Redacted] to conduct an evaluation of the parties and the
Children as to issues of custody/access, visitation, decision making,
and interference with parental rights. NYSCEF Doc. No. 97 (1/20/21
Order). NYSCEF Doc. No. 97 (1/20/21 Order). [Redacted] submitted the
"Child Custody Evaluation of [O.B.] and [A.B.]" on December 8, 2021
("[Redacted] Report"). Ct. Ex. 18 (12/8/21 [Redacted] Report).
On August 4, 2021, Defendant filed the second instant motion, Motion
Sequence Number 24, seeking the right to travel with the Children during
his scheduled access time without consent of Plaintiff and the approval
of the Court. Ct. Ex. 7 (8/4/21 Mot. Seq. No. 24). Plaintiff moved by
cross-motion seeking, inter alia, to dismiss Defendant's
application. Ct. Ex. 8 (8/23/21 Mot. Seq. No. 25). By Decision and Order
(Loehr, J.) dated March 29, 2022, Plaintiff's cross-motion was denied
without prejudice and the status of the pending motions was to be
addressed at a pre-hearing conference before the Court on April 25,
2022. Ct. Ex. 10 (3/29/22 Decision and Order.).
On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed the third instant motion seeking, inter alia,
to enforce the parties' March 2019 Stipulation by directing that
Plaintiff cease and desist from disparaging Defendant to the parties'
Children and granting Defendant sole legal and physical custody of the
Children. Ct. Ex. 11 (9/2/22 Mot. Seq. 27).
The Forensic Reports
During the life of this matter, four forensic reports have been
conducted, of which two were conducted post-Judgment: "Child Custody
Evaluation" by [Redacted] (November 5, 2017) ("[Redacted] 2017 Report"),
"Updated Child Custody Evaluation" by [Redacted] (March 7, 2019)
("[Redacted] 2019 Report"), the [Redacted] Report, and the [Redacted]
Report. The Court admitted each of the reports into evidence at trial
and neither party called the evaluators to testify at trial, nor did the
parties challenge any of the reports by an independent forensic expert
at trial. See Def. Exs. 26 ([Redacted] 2017 Report), 27
([Redacted] 2019 Report), 17 ([Redacted] Report), and 18 ([Redacted]
Report). While the Court accords some weight to the opinion and
recommendations of the forensic reports, "they are not determinative and
do not usurp the judgment of the trial judge." Koslowski v. Mangialino, 36 AD3d 916, 917, 830 N.Y.S. 2d 557 (2d Dept. 2007).
The limited scope of the [Redacted] Report was to assess whether
Defendant suffered from a mental illness, needed to be in treatment, and
posed a danger to himself or to the Children. Ct. Ex. 17 (6/9/20
[Redacted] Report) at 2. [Redacted] conducted sixteen (16) clinical
interviews of Defendant, as well as psychological testing of Defendant
and reviewed self-report questionnaires. He conducted seven (7)
collateral interviews of Plaintiff, and twenty (20) collateral
interviews of other individual sources. [Redacted] also reviewed
voluminous documents provided by the parties, as well as the two prior
forensic reports by [Redacted].
The [Redacted] Report concluded that there is no evidence to suggest
that Defendant has suffered or currently suffers from a mental disorder
with psychotic features:
"though this evaluation coupled with psychological testing
does not suggest that he suffers from a major depressive episode at
present His current providers do not perceive any evidence to suggest
that he suffers from significant depression at present and do not see
any indications that [Redacted] is at risk of hurting himself or others
at present. Furthermore, the undersigned is not aware of any evidence
corroborating the mother's allegations of a more severe mental disorder (e.g.,
bipolar illness with psychotic features) In sum, there is no collateral
evidence by any of the father's past or current providers ([Redacted],
[Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted]) suggesting that the father presents
with a severe mental disorder or psychotic features." Id. at 332.
The [Redacted] Report does not identify any "red flags" suggesting
that Defendant poses a danger to the Children as alleged by Plaintiff:
"The mother's concerns about the safety of the children,
while present all along, have been accentuated following the marital
separation. It would appear that the father's parental behavior has at
times been less than optimal (e.g., allowing the children to ride
their bikes into the streets unsupervised). However, these and other
allegations (inappropriate sexual behavior with the children) have been
investigated at least twice by CPS. Both of these investigations
determined that the charges were unfounded. The undersigned's contact
with important collateral sources (the children's pediatricians, who
were contacted by CPS workers, Supervised Visitation Experts, school
officials) do not raise any significant red flags regarding the father
posing any kind of danger to the children." Id. at 33.
The [Redacted] Report also addressed the allegations raised in the May and September 2019 CPS investigations:
"[Redacted] again raised the same allegations that the
father inappropriately touched [O.B.] in his anus and therefore posed a
danger to his son. As noted, these allegations were previously
investigated and dismissed by CPS. [Redacted] argues that CPS did not
conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation. This may be so, but
[Redacted] would not provide consent for the undersigned to speak to CPS
workers to verify and/or shed more light on her concerns. [Redacted]'s
refusal to let the undersigned contact CPS workers is not typical of how
a concerned parent would respond if there were imminent danger, raising
question marks about her overall reliability on this issue. Lastly, by
[Redacted]'s own account, following the lifting of the supervision of
the father's visits with the children, there have not been any
significant incidents suggesting that [Redacted] poses a significant
danger to the children (neither physical harm nor egregious neglect)." Id. at 34.
[Redacted] conducted four (4) examinations of Plaintiff, eight (8)
examinations of Defendant, and two (2) examinations of the Children—once
with their mother and once with their father. See Ct. Ex. 18
(12/8/21 [Redacted] Report). He conducted psychological testing of the
parents and reviewed Child Behavior Checklists completed by each parent
as to each child. [Redacted] conducted eleven (11) collateral
interviews, and reviewed records including, but not limited to, the two
prior forensic reports by [Redacted], the [Redacted] Report, documents
provided by both parties such as legal documents, notes from the CPS
investigations, letters from providers, school records, and pediatric
records.
[Redacted] opines on the CPS investigations as follows:
"[Redacted] seems disingenuous when claiming CPS
investigations were instigated by others such as pediatricians when in
fact [Redacted] was always the driving engine Without even a green card
at the time when any of these allegations arose, [Redacted] feared
severe legal consequences and possible deportation if the allegations of
mistreatment of his children including child sexual abuse stuck." Id. at 51.
"The allegations against him, which are profoundly
disturbing and instigated directly or indirectly by [Redacted], appear
contrived, grossly exaggerated, or calculated to gain leverage over
[Redacted] or to do him harm in questioning his parental ability or
rights." Id. at 56.
The [Redacted] Report specifically addresses the allegations made by
Plaintiff regarding the alleged four penis infections experienced by
O.B.:
"The matter of alleged penis infections for [O.B.] are still
mentioned by the mother. Such allegations persist in promoting a
disservice to the integrity of [Redacted]. The pediatric records
reviewed by this evaluator only report the claim from the mother of
penis infections. There is mention that [Redacted]'s penis had redness,
which, according to [Redacted], may have been from the method in which
[Redacted] cleaned the penis of his son during bathing. Such a
conclusion makes no sense if there were actually an infection, which
always implies a sexually transmitted disease in young children, which
lab reports would document as to the specific nature of the infection.
None of this happened. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that no
examining physician ever thought this was necessary to investigate
medically. Had there been a valid concern of a sexually transmitted
disease with the father as a suspect, [Redacted] would have been denied
access to his children and likely arrested and incarcerated. None of
this happened because the allegation is without merit." Id. at 51.
The [Redacted] Report concludes that "both parents were observed by
this evaluator to be wonderful caregivers to the children In spite of
the acrimonious relationship between [Redacted] and [Redacted] and their
high level of mutual mistrust, each parent recognizes the strengths of
the other in regard to care of the children." Id. at 5. The
[Redacted] Report further concludes, "Both parents are fit caretakers,
but [Redacted] has shirked her responsibility as the primary custodial
parent with the obligation of supporting [Redacted]'s role except when
it suits her needs." Id. at 56.
The [Redacted] Report recommends that it is in the best interests of
the Children for Defendant to have equal, or near equal, access time
with the Children and that the parents have joint decision-making
authority. The Report states, "If the mother cannot honor the
responsibility of protecting the father's access to the children free of
the threat of future reckless allegations to authorities, then custody
should be reversed to avoid future harm to the father and his reputation
as well as the risk of parental alienation." Id.
Pre-Trial Proceedings
This matter was reassigned to this Court (Patel, J.) in October 2022.
The parties appeared before this Court on October 13, at which time the
trial was scheduled to commence on January 30, 2023. NYSCEF Doc. No.
229 (10/13/22 Court Notice). On January 13, 2023, counsel for Defendant
informed the Court that she was unable to comply with the Court's Part
Rules regarding pre-trial submissions despite efforts to meet and confer
with counsel for Plaintiff; she informed the Court that she had not
received a response from her outreach to counsel for Plaintiff since
approximately November 21, 2022. NYSCEF Doc. 244 (1/13/23 [Redacted]
Letter). The Court directed all parties to appear on January 26, on
which date the Court addressed the issues raised in the January 13
Letter, among others, and issued further directives as to pre-trial
submissions. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 247 (1/19/23 Court Notice); 309 (1/26/23
Tr.). The Court also ruled on Plaintiff's motions in limine (Mot. Seq. No. 28), see
NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 251-252. Among other rulings, the Court denied
Plaintiff's application to bar the introduction of evidence concerning
the CPS/OCFS May and September 2019 CPS investigations, and directed
that said records be provided to the Court for in camera review.
Parties appeared for trial on January 30, at which time Plaintiff
moved to discharge her attorney, which application was granted. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 274 (1/20/23 Tr.); see also
NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 261-262, 269 (Mot. Seq. No. 29). The Court adjourned
the trial to commence on April 5, 2023, to allow Plaintiff sufficient
time to retain new counsel. The Court also conferenced with the parties
as to the collective application of Defendant and the AFC to amend the
existing parenting schedule to afford Defendant greater access time with
the Children. The Court determined that a temporary amendment to the
parenting schedule pending trial that allows for equal access to both
parents is in the best interests of the Children. The Court issued an
Order Regarding Interim Parenting Schedule on January 31, 2023, whereby
the Court set forth an interim parenting schedule and further ordered
that neither parent shall disparage the other parent so as to prejudice
the Children against the other parent and that the parties shall comply
with Paragraph 11 of the March 2019 Stipulation regarding certain
enumerated rights that shall be afforded to their Children. NYSCEF Doc.
No. 270 (1/31/23 Order).
For completeness, the Court refers to its Decision and Order as to
Motion Sequence Number 30, rendered from the bench and on the record in
open court on March 10, 2023, whereby the Court denied the Motion to
Quash a Subpoena brought by Non-Party Westchester County Department of
Social Services ("DSS"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 353 (3/10/23 Tr.). The Court
directed DSS to produce the full and complete case records investigating
the allegations of child neglect as to the Children to the Court for in camera review. Id.; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 346 (3/28/23 Protective Order).
The Court further refers to its Decision and Order as to Motion
Sequence Number 32, rendered from the bench and on the record in open
court on June 22, 2023, whereby the Court denied the Motion to Quash a
Subpoena brought by Non-Party New York State Office of Children and
Family Services (OCFS). NYSCEF Doc. No. 445 (6/22/23 Tr.). The Court
directed OCFS to produce the full and complete case records
investigating the allegations of child neglect as to the Children to the
Court for in camera review. Id.
Trial Proceedings
Both parties testified at trial. Defendant called the following nine
(9) witnesses at trial: [Redacted] (Supervised Visitation Experts
(SVE)), [Redacted] ([Redacted], the Children's pediatrician), [Redacted]
(the Children's pediatrician), [Redacted] (clinical social worker),
[Redacted] (Defendant's therapist), [Redacted] ([Redacted] Daycare),
[Redacted] ([Redacted] Police Department), [Redacted] ([Redacted] Police
Department), and [Redacted] (Department of Social Services case
worker). Plaintiff called the following three (3) witnesses: [Redacted]
(friend of Plaintiff), [Redacted] (friend of Plaintiff), and [Redacted]
(sister of Plaintiff).
May 26, 2019 CPS Report
Defendant testified that during the weekend of May 17-19, when he
exercised his parenting time, he planned to take the Children for a bike
ride to the playground next to his home. Before departing, he went to
the bathroom and when he returned, he realized the Children were not in
the home. He then saw they were outside with the neighbor and "it
appears that [O.B.] had managed for the first time to reach the top
lock." Tr. 268:20-269:5. That "very afternoon," Defendant testified that
he purchased a chain lock and installed it higher such that it was out
of the Children's reach and installed additional child safety locks
throughout his home. Tr. 269:8-13.
Plaintiff learned from the Children about this incident. Tr. 1073:10,
1074:1-8. She testified that she was concerned because she had never
seen Defendant's home, and therefore looked it upon Google Maps and saw
that there "was an open gate where the train runs," which caused her
concern because O.B. is interested in trains. Tr. 1075:9-14. Plaintiff
did not contact Defendant about this incident prior to filing her report
with CPS on May 26, see Tr. 268:8-10, because they had already e-mailed about the weekend and Defendant "didn't mention anything about the bikes." Id.
at 1327:25-1328:9. She testified that she called CPS because she
discussed it with her family and "the only thing I could [think] of that
could be helpful to make sure that the kids were going to be safe when
they were at his house, and that he wasn't going to leave them
unattended." Tr. 1349:3-8.
[Redacted], Plaintiff's sister, testified that Plaintiff and the
Children told her about this incident, and she discussed with Plaintiff
whether Plaintiff should call CPS. [Redacted] recommended that Plaintiff
call CPS "to investigate and make sure the kids are being kept safe,"
and if CPS determined they were unsafe, she believed that CPS would
order supervised visits. Id. at 1296:2-13. She could not recall
whether she recommended that Plaintiff call Defendant directly to find
out what had transpired. Id. at 1296:23-25.
Plaintiff testified that she informed the assigned case worker that
Defendant was bipolar. Tr. 1078:1-9. She stated that she was aware of
Defendant's diagnosis based on psychological testing that he underwent
during the marriage. Tr. 1080:13-14. Plaintiff testified that she also
reported to the case worker that O.B. had penis infections and A.B. had
urology issues "because they were odd issues." Tr. 1106:14-23.
Defendant testified that he learned from the case worker that the
"reporter said that [O.B.] had had frequent penis infections following
my access" and that A.B. "had had frequent urination at her daycare
following my access with the children." Tr. 269:19-270:4. Defendant did
not dispute that O.B. had experienced penis irritation throughout his
life, and that he had consulted with O.B.'s primary pediatrician
"multiple times over the year" regarding this "chronic" issue. Tr.
270:15-23. This fact is corroborated by the [Redacted] records which
show that O.B. was treated for penis infections on the following dates:
January 24, 2018, April 2, 2018, January 11, 2019, May 25, 2019, January
27, 2020, February 7, 2020, and April 27, 2021. Tr. 271: 7-21.
Defendant's testimony established that O.B. had also had overnight
access with Plaintiff prior to the dates of treatment, contrary to
Plaintiff's report that O.B.'s penis infections developed while in his
father's care.
[Redacted] testified that A.B. experienced urinary problems—meaning,
she asked to go to the bathroom several times but was not actually
urinating—at different points in time and the first of which was on May
6, 2019. She stated that A.B.'s urinary problems occurred on both
parties' access days, Tr. 850:25-851:3, although Plaintiff told
[Redacted] that "she is always concerned when [A.B.] comes home from
Dad's," to which [Redacted] responded that she was not qualified to ask
those questions of A.B. Tr. 773:1-10; see also Def. Ex. F ([Redacted] Daycare Records).
Defendant received a letter on August 8, 2019, stating that the May
CPS investigation report was "unfounded," and after which "[Redacted]
became much more aggressive towards me." Tr. 279:10-11. For example,
Defendant testified to a September 2, 2019 incident where O.B. came home
with a box of "no" tickets that O.B. would give to his father when he
does "bad things." See Def. Ex. K ("no" ticket). Plaintiff denied
that she said anything to O.B. about tickets and his father, and
explained that O.B. even wrote tickets to her "to be silly" because it
was a system his kindergarten teacher used in class. Tr. 974:18-975:24.
At trial, when asked whether she believes her allegations against
Defendant reported to CPS as to inadequate guardianship are true,
Plaintiff answered in the affirmative. Tr. 1407:1-5.
September 10, 2019 & September 23, 2019 CPS Reports
Defendant testified that on the morning of September 9, he received
an email from Plaintiff stating that she saw her attorney that day
regarding a late child support payment and that "[g]oing forward if you
do not pay the daycare and child support as well as the other items I
will seek relief from the court to enforce the order." Def. Ex. P
(9/19/12 Email). Plaintiff stated in her email that she would seek
relief from the court to enforce the order if payment was not received
by September 15 and on a going forward basis. Id.
That evening, Plaintiff testified that O.B. was in the bath and
unable to sit and crying, and when Plaintiff inquired, O.B. said that
"his dad stuck his finger in his butt" and would not stop. Tr.
1109:8-17, 1251:21-23. Plaintiff testified that she "was concerned
because that's a very strange statement to come from my son who had
never spoke like that and talked, and because he was so clear the way he
told me, and because he was crying and in pain." Tr. 1109:19-25.
Plaintiff stated that O.B.'s school did not contact her on that day,
which was a Monday, concerning any discomfort experienced by O.B. Tr.
1271:16-21.
[Redacted] testified that Plaintiff brought O.B. to his office on
September 10, and asked to speak in private during which she stated to
[Redacted] that O.B. told her his father had put his finger in his butt.
Tr. 11:14-19. [Redacted] did not question O.B. directly regarding this
allegation. Id. at 143:13-21. He conducted a physical examination of O.B. and there were no physical findings of sexual abuse. Id. at 114:25-115:3. He further testified that Plaintiff told him that Defendant was sexually abused by his mother as a child. Id.
at 112:4-5. Based on the foregoing, [Redacted] testified that he called
the hotline for child abuse because he had to consider the possibility
of sexual abuse against a child. Id. at 114:3-6.
Plaintiff did not contact Defendant regarding this incident. Tr.
342:20-343:1. Defendant further testified as to his belief that "it is
absolutely not a coincidence that the day before, on September 9th, she
went to see her attorney [ ] to try to get him to file a motion against
me because I was late on the child support. And to me, again, the timing
doesn't seem to be a coincidence that it is the very next day on
September 10th that she makes the false allegation." Tr. 693:1-9.
[Redacted], the assigned case worker, first interviewed Plaintiff on
September 10, and, when asked if there was anything unusual about the
interview, she testified that Plaintiff read from her notes maintained
on her cellphone as opposed to telling her what had transpired. Tr.
1420:16-24. [Redacted] testified that Plaintiff wrote the note on her
cellphone on September 10 at 8:55 a.m.—the same day of the interview.
Plaintiff testified that she told [Redacted] that Defendant "had been
diagnosed with bipolar and psychotic thinking when we were married" and
was sexually abused by his mother; she also told her that O.B. is
autistic. Tr. 1115:10-1116:7. Plaintiff acknowledged that she did not
bring an application to suspend Defendant's access time in connection
with this incident of alleged sexual abuse. Tr. 1276:15-23.
[Redacted] testified that, on September 11, Plaintiff filed a
complaint with the [Redacted] Police Department alleging that Defendant
had sexually abused his five-year old son.Thereafter, he set up an
interview of O.B. with CAC. Id. at 298:15-25. CAC conducted the
interview on September 13, at which [Redacted] was present along with
the CAC interviewer, an Assistant District Attorney, and [Redacted]. As
stated in his Investigative Report, see Def. Ex. D1 (9/11/19
[Redacted] Police Dept. Records), "[t]hroughout the interview [O.B.]
changed his story a few times from his mom told him to say certain
things to she didn't tell him. [O.B.] is on the autism spectrum so it
was hard to get a good read on the interview." Id. Therefore, he spoke with Plaintiff and "explained that we do not feel there is enough for criminal charges at this time." Id.; see also
Tr. 301:17-24. [Redacted] testified that he suggested interviewing
Defendant, but Plaintiff requested that he did not "because she thought
it might make things worse between them at the time." Tr. 302:2-4. He
further testified that he did not interview Defendant because "nothing
during the interview of [O.B.] gave me the impression that something bad
happened at that point." Id. at 9-10. When asked if he believed that [O.B.] was coached by Plaintiff, [Redacted] answered "yes." Id.
at 308:17-21; 309:15-17. Plaintiff testified that she told O.B. prior
to the interview that he should "just tell them the truth," Tr.
1113:20-25, and denied coaching him. Tr. 1275:1.
[Redacted] testified that O.B. understood the questions during the
CAC interview. She stated that, during a subsequent interview of
Plaintiff, Plaintiff stated that O.B. is autistic and therefore did not
understand the questions during the interview. Tr. 1426:2-4, 18-23
("Because according to mom during the forensic interview at the Child
Advocacy Center, her son [O.B.] did not make a disclosure because he did
not understand the questions, but it was not the truth, because he did
understand the questions"). She stated that during her weekly home
visits during the course of the investigation, she did not notice that
O.B. was autistic; in fact, she only learned of O.B.'s autism after
Plaintiff told her. [Redacted] went on to testify that O.B. was coached
by his mother as to what to say during the interview. Tr.
1426:25-1427:4.
[Redacted] was also assigned to the September 23 CPS report. She
continued making weekly home visits and spoke with [Redacted] and the
Children's medical providers about the allegations of sexual abuse of
A.B.
Defendant testified that on September 19, A.B., who was three years
old at the time, came into his room in the morning and told him, "Mommy
said I should take your phone and call the policeman because mommy said
you put your finger in my vagina," and "Mommy said I can get a new dad."
Tr. 329:1-5. Defendant testified that in light of the first CPS
investigation and his "horror" at A.B.'s statements, he began recording
the conversation. Def. Ex. V2 (9/19/19 audio recording).
Plaintiff denied that she discussed with A.B. that she should call
the police or spoke to the Children about a new dad. Tr. 1049:14-25.
Plaintiff further denied discussing with A.B. about her father touching
her vagina. Tr. 1118:14-21. Plaintiff testified that she did not make
this report to CPS, nor did she not seek to suspend Defendant's access
time in connection with this incident. Tr. 1276:15-23.
The following day, on September 20, [Redacted] testified that she
observed A.B. drawing scribbles, and when asked to elaborate, A.B.
stated, "They are boobies, mommy told me to draw boobies." Tr. 779:3-16.
Plaintiff testified that she did not tell A.B. to draw boobies. Tr.
1179:23. When Defendant came to pick up A.B. that day, [Redacted]
testified that Defendant told her that "he had been accused, that there
was allegations that he had put his finger in [A.B.'s] vagina, and he
said he just wanted me to know that this was said and that if I could
document anything like that." Tr. 780:3-11; see also Def. Ex. F.
[Redacted] called OCFS that day and left a message. She testified that,
"I know as a mandated reporter, if a child says something to me, it has
to be reported, but it was coming from the father, not the child so I
had called my licenser asking what I should do, and she suggested that I
make the call." Tr. 781:4-11. She then filed a CPS report on September
23. [Redacted]'s contemporaneous notes regarding this incident state
"coincidence? On dry erase board today said draw boobies," Def. Ex. F,
and she testified that it was "really bizarre that [A.B.] made the
comment earlier on Friday and then [she] had this conversation [with
Defendant] Friday evening." Tr. 781:12-21.
Defendant testified that on September 25 and 26, A.B. made comments
that a boy at school had "bitten her vagina," and his belief that such
comments were not true but the result of coaching by Plaintiff Mother.
Tr. 348:9-23, 360:1-9, 622:5-13. He took a recording of A.B. making
these comments. See Def. Ex. V2 (9/25/19 Audio, "but, Papa,
[Redacted] bite me. He bite me on my vagina."). Defendant informed
[Redacted] of these comments, who in turn, conveyed these comments to
[Redacted]. Tr. 553:1-3.
When asked why she ultimately determined the reports were unfounded,
[Redacted] testified that, in particular, the evidence gathered from the
treating pediatrician indicated that the Children themselves did not
make complaints during the visits. Additionally, during the CAC
interview of O.B., he stated that he was told what to say by his mother.
[Redacted] also testified that her "face-to-face contact" with
Plaintiff was compelling in that "[s]he wasn't cooperating with the
investigation" and that, at times, she had difficulty getting in touch
with Plaintiff and scheduling visits. [Redacted] testified that,
"[d]uring the first interview she did not respond as quick as it was
supposed to be about the facts that occurred the night before with her
son, [O.B.], instead she stated that she wrote everything that happened
the night before; however, the date was 9/10 and it was 8:55 a.m. in the
morning, so she would have all that information the same date that the
report was called." Tr. 1439:1-1440:2.
When asked at trial whether she believes that allegations of sexual
abuse perpetrated by Defendant against O.B. are true, Plaintiff answered
"I don't know." Tr. 1407:6-9. Plaintiff testified that she did not make
any allegations against Defendant regarding sexual abuse of A.B., and
therefore she does not "believe anything happened with [A.B.]." Tr.
1407:22-24.
Defendant adamantly denied that he had sexually abused either of his
children. He testified that he filed both a criminal and civil complaint
against Plaintiff alleging that she levied false allegations against
him, coached the children to repeat and reinforce the false allegations,
and directly or indirectly took proactive steps to initiate CPS
investigations. See Tr. 336:24-338:8.
October 2, 2019 Daycare Incident
[Redacted] testified that on October 2, she made the decision to
terminate the daycare contract for A.B. because of nonpayment and late
pick-ups. She sent an email to both parents notifying them of the
termination. Tr. 792:21-793:5. That day, she had multiple calls with
Plaintiff, during which time she was crying and asked [Redacted] to
reconsider her decision. Tr. 794:23-795:7. Defendant came to pick up
A.B. on October 2, and [Redacted] described that they had a very
uncomfortable exchange about the termination. [Redacted] testified that
she felt uncomfortable and intimidated. Tr. 796:2-5; see also Def. Ex. F ("Dad came to pickup, very angry, aggressive").
The next day, October 3, Defendant came to drop off A.B. and offered
to pay in advance and "was not taking no for an answer, so we had to ask
him to leave." Tr. 796:17-24. Defendant acknowledged that he had an
argument with [Redacted], but believed that the termination was a direct
result of Plaintiff's coaching of A.B. and the litigation between the
parties, rather than the result of late payments. Tr. 367:4-10, 711:7-15
("when I offered to pay more money, she kept refusing. So, to me, that
kind of validated my thought that it was actually not because of the
late payments that we were terminated, but because of all like the
successive CPS investigation[s] and background coaching"). [Redacted]
had a subsequent conversation with Plaintiff regarding the termination
and recounted the incident with Defendant. Tr. 797:8-14. Plaintiff then
told [Redacted] that Defendant "was bipolar and that she thought maybe
he could have been off his medications." Tr. 797:23-798:1.
Plaintiff testified that she withheld Defendant's access time as of
October 4, and went to the police station to file a report about the
incident because she felt Defendant was "unstable" and she was very
concerned about the Children and their safety. Tr. 1121:2-15; 1215:5-12.
She attempted to make a police report because "I could be held in
contempt for that, and I wanted to document the incident because I was
very concerned about the Children," Tr. 1121:6-8. [Redacted] of the
[Redacted] Police Department testified that Plaintiff attempted to file a
complaint against Defendant in connection with an incident at A.B.'s
daycare involving Defendant. See Def. Ex. H1 (10/4/19 [Redacted]
Police Dept. Incident Report). He advised Plaintiff that third-party
complaints cannot be filed at the police department, and that she would
have to collect first-party/witness statements, which could then be
filed. Tr. 566:2-6. [Redacted] testified that Plaintiff did not return
with a first-party statement. Tr. 566:13-14.
On the same day, [Redacted] received calls from Plaintiff "in a
panic" asking her to go to the police station, to which [Redacted]
stated she could not. Later on, [Redacted] and another police officer
came to the daycare. [Redacted] indicated that she did not feel she was
in physical danger and did not complete any paperwork to file a sworn
statement, complaint and/or restraining order. Tr. 799:1-18; see also
Def. Ex. F ("Mom waited in her car until police left and then calling
my cell that she needs paperwork completed and brought back to police"),
Def. Ex. H1. During a subsequent call, [Redacted] testified that
Plaintiff said she was very worried for the Children's safety. See id.
[Redacted] testified that Plaintiff's then-attorney reached out to her
to sign an affidavit describing the incident, but she declined to sign
it because it was inaccurate. Tr. 816:12-17. [Redacted]'s
contemporaneous notes state that "seems like mother may be using my bad
interaction with father as a pawn in their custody battle." Def. Ex. F.
The [Redacted] Police Department close out the matter the same day. Def.
Ex. H1.
Supervised Visitation and Interference with Access
Plaintiff testified that on October 4, 2019, she sought Defendant's
consent for supervised visitation because she was concerned for the
Children's safety in light of the October 2 incident between Defendant
and [Redacted]. Tr. 1215:2-12. On October 8, the Court (Lubell, J.)
directed that SVE supervise visitation between Defendant and the
Children. Ct. Ex. 16 (11/24/19 SVE Report). The supervised visits
occurred on November 2, 6, 9, 16, 20, and 23, 2019. [Redacted] testified
that, prior to scheduling the visits, she conducted intake appointments
of the parents. She testified that Defendant was expeditious in
scheduling the intake appointment and cooperative in answering her
questions. By contrast, [Redacted] testified that Plaintiff "took a
while" to schedule her intake appointment, stating she had to speak to
her attorney. Tr. 51:11-25. At the intake appointment, Plaintiff was
vague in responding to questions and repeatedly indicated she needed to
speak to her attorney. Id. Plaintiff did however emphasize that
"the children were horrified of their father" and that O.B. was "very
autistic." Tr. 52:1-10. Plaintiff denied that she told [Redacted] that
the Children were horrified to see their father. Tr. 1000:10-12.
At the first supervised visit on November 2, [Redacted] testified
that the Children "actually ran to him And they kissed him and hugged
him, and we didn't see any apprehension or them being afraid of their
father at that time, or any other time." Tr. 58:12-16. Defendant
testified that during the visit, the Children asked him if he was their
"real dad." Tr. 374:10-17. [Redacted]'s testimony and report corroborate
that the Children asked Defendant "Are you our real dad?" Tr. 80:7-11.
Plaintiff denied discussing with the Children whether Defendant was
their read dad. Tr. 1056:12-15.
[Redacted] testified that the supervised visitation between Defendant
and the Children proceeded smoothly and agreed that "at all times the
children were comfortable with [Redacted]" and not afraid of him. Tr.
79:23-80:3. Nevertheless, [Redacted] testified that "[Redacted] called
each and every time to inform that the children were stressed, and that
the children were uncomfortable with their father," but—when asked—she
could not provide any further explanation or detail. Tr. 66:10-22.
Defendant testified that he sought to restore his unsupervised access in late October 2019, see
Court. Ex. 31 (Mot. Seq. No. 13) and, at a November 2019 appearance, he
reluctantly consented to a forensic valuation by [Redacted], which he
understood would be completed in three weeks—in December 2019. Tr.
378:8-18. Defendant testified that on the eve of the report's submission
to the Court, Plaintiff filed an emergency order to show cause seeking
to enjoin [Redacted]'s evaluation on the basis of purported bias and
prejudice by [Redacted] against the Court. See Ct. Ex. 33 (Mot.
Seq. No. 16). Plaintiff testified that she taped a session with
[Redacted] during which he made the remarks at issue. Tr. 1281:4-11. As a
result, [Redacted]'s report was thrown out, Defendant's access was not
restored in full, and Defendant filed a motion on December 24 to arrange
for supervised access during the holidays—to which Plaintiff finally
consented. Tr. 392:15-393:3.
Defendant testified that, as a result of the foregoing, the
restoration of his unsupervised access with the Children was delayed, a
limited, unsupervised access schedule was implemented on January 14,
2020, and the Court directed the appointment of a new forensic
evaluation by [Redacted] as to Defendant only. Tr. 395:20-23; 396:8-13.
He further testified that during the period of October 8, 2019 through
at least January 15, 2020, Plaintiff interfered with more than half of
his visits prompting him to move for contempt. Tr. 398:23-399:12; see also
Ct. Ex. 35 (Mot. Seq. No. 18). In response to his moving to restore his
access, Defendant testified that Plaintiff recycled the allegations
that he sexually abused the Children—allegations that CPS had deemed as
unfounded—and that his mother sexually abused him. Tr. 400:13-17;
403:6-13.
Defendant testified that it was not until June 26, 2020, that his
access was fully restored. Tr. 441:22-25. Defendant maintains that,
thereafter, Plaintiff became increasingly aggressive towards him by, for
example, threatening to relocate to [Redacted] and refusing to pick up
Defendant's telephone calls during his telephone access time with the
Children. Tr. 424:15-425:24. In January 2021, the Court issued an order
appointing [Redacted] to conduct a comprehensive custody evaluation. Tr.
443:9-14. Defendant testified that although the [Redacted] Report was
submitted to the Court on December 8, 2021, and a trial date in May
2022, Plaintiff caused delays throughout these proceedings, including
having substituted counsel three times. Defendant testified that despite
the recommendations of the [Redacted] Report, Plaintiff continued to
interfere with the Children's relationship with him as evidenced by the
continuation of disturbing and disparaging statements by the Children to
him—thereby prompting him to file a motion for contempt. Tr. 496:10-14,
502:12-18; see also Ct. Exs. 11-14 (Mot. Seq. No. 22).
In January 2023, the Court amended the access schedule to be 50/50 so
that the Children are with each parent for an approximately equal
amount of time. When asked how the Children have adjusted, Plaintiff
testified that they seem "dysregulated" and "have more tantrums than
usual." Tr. 1127:18-25.
Allegations Regarding Defendant's Mental Health and Abuse
Plaintiff testified that she stated numerous times to various
parties, including the forensic evaluators, CPS case workers, and
[Redacted], that she was concerned about Defendant's mental health and
particularly where it concerns the Children. Tr. 1392:19-2. She
acknowledged that both the [Redacted] and [Redacted] Reports did not
find that Defendant was a danger to himself or the Children. When asked
if she still has concerns about Defendant's mental health, Plaintiff
testified that she could not answer "yes" or "no." Tr. 1392:16-21.
Rather, Plaintiff testified that her statements as to Defendant's
bipolar diagnosis are true. Tr. 1408:2-4.
Defendant testified that he had never received a psychiatric
diagnosis and/or that he had a personality disorder. He further
testified that he was not prescribed any psychiatric medications during
the marriage or around the time of the May 2019 CPS report. Tr.
327:9-25.
[Redacted] testified that he has been Defendant's therapist for
approximately the last ten (10) years, during which time he has never
diagnosed Defendant with bipolar disorder, nor would he offer such a
diagnosis. Tr. 235:1-8. He is aware that Plaintiff described Defendant
as bipolar, a fact which he learned from the parties' couples'
therapist, [Redacted]. Tr. 234:18-23. The Court notes that the
[Redacted] Report, admitted into evidence, states that on "May 18, 2017
according to [Redacted], [Redacted] diagnosed [Redacted] with a Bipolar
Disorder with Psychotic Features and believed that he should be on
medication." Ct. Ex. 17 at 6. The Report goes on to state that during
[Redacted]'s collateral interview of [Redacted], she "denied diagnosing
[Redacted] with any psychiatric condition (such as bipolar with
psychotic thinking as alleged by the mother) and further noted that she
typically does not diagnose her clients in her practice." Id. at
8. Plaintiff testified that she was aware that [Redacted] denied making a
bipolar diagnosis of Defendant to [Redacted] and [Redacted]. Tr.
1302:18-21.
[Redacted] testified that he has been treating Defendant regarding
his complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that stems from his
childhood "with an emotionally abusive alcoholic mother who,
unfortunately, died in front him when he was a kid and got compounded by
his emotionally abusive relationship with" Plaintiff. Id. at
209:5-11. When elaborating upon Defendant's anxiety, [Redacted]
testified that Defendant "is afraid that once this court case is over,
another pretense will be made to bring him back to court or take away
his access to his children. He is very afraid that some other allegation
is going to come up that isn't true." Tr. 231: 15-23. [Redacted]
testified that Defendant has not demonstrated any symptoms consistent
with a personality order. Id. at 220:4-7.
Plaintiff testified that she told various third parties, including
[Redacted] and [Redacted], that Defendant was sexually abused by his
mother. Tr. 1116:1-7, 1249:2-15, 1339:9-12. Defendant denies such
allegations. Tr. 349:2-21. [Redacted] testified that Defendant has never
reported that he was sexually abused by his mother. Tr. 209:12-21. He
testified that the only incident that was "remotely like that" occurred
when Defendant intervened between his parents fighting and his mother
"opened her bathrobe at him, exposed herself to him, as a way to silence
him and stop him from being in the middle." Id. [Redacted]
further testified that, based on what Defendant has told him, he does
not believe Defendant was sexually abused by his mother. Tr. 236:15-18.
Allegations Regarding Plaintiff's Coaching of the Children
Defendant introduced into evidence audio recordings of the Children
that he recorded on dates spanning from September 2019 through July
2022.[2]
Defendant made these recordings, generally, after hearing the Children
make statements that caused him concern and panic. For example, the
Children made the following statements:
• A.B. states on September 19, 2019 that "She [Plaintiff] said I could get a new dad"
• A.B. states on September 25, 2019 that "[Redacted] bite
me. He bite me on my vagina. Today, and I asked [Redacted] if he go on
time out because he bit my vagina"
• A.B. asks on November 2, 2019 "You're our real dad?"
• A.B. states on December 12, 2019 "Mommy says you have to wipe me and [O.B.]"
• A.B. states on August 16, 2020 "She [Plaintiff] said you don't go in heaven"
• A.B. states on July 26, 2021 that "Because she thinks that
we won't come back from France and you guys said agreement that we
can't go to France"; O.B. states "Papa can we go to France?"
See Def. Ex. V2 (audio recordings). Defendant maintains that
the content of these recordings evidences that Plaintiff coached the
Children, and that he "was terrified that I was being set up." Tr.
361:1. He testified that these types of disparaging statements have
continued throughout this litigation, and he does not believe that
Plaintiff is capable of ceasing making these statements to their
Children. See Tr. 496:10-14, 502:12-18. The Court refers to the
testimony of [Redacted] and [Redacted] as to their opinions that
Plaintiff has coached O.B. as described supra at page 15.
Plaintiff denied that she discussed with the Children getting a new
dad, anybody biting A.B.'s vagina, or the concept of heaven. Tr.
1049:14-25, 1050:6-10, 1060:10-11. In fact, Plaintiff wholly denied
making statements to the Children that constitute the twenty-six (26)
audio recordings admitted into evidence. Tr. 1322:2-6. Regarding travel
to France, Plaintiff testified that she discussed with the Children that
the parties "have an agreement that you go when you are older." Tr.
1062:1-12.
Lincoln Hearing
During the trial, counsel placed on the record their respective positions as to a Lincoln hearing. Tr. at 573-582. Each of the parties agreed that the decision as to whether to conduct a Lincoln
hearing is left to the discretion of the Court. The AFC stated that the
Children present as very young for their ages (O.B. is nine (9) years
old and A.B. is seven (7) years old) and, in her recent meetings with
her clients, the Children have not been as forthcoming. Defendant's
position was that the Court should not interview the Children in light
of the allegations that Plaintiff has coached the Children. Plaintiff
argued in favor of conducting a Lincoln hearing so that the Court could determine the veracity of the allegations of coaching.
The decision to conduct a Lincoln hearing to determine the best interests of the child in a custody dispute is within the discretion of the trial court. See Matter of Desroches v. Desroches, 54 AD3d 1035, 1036, 864 N.Y.S.2d 551, 553 (2d Dept. 2008).
Here, given the ages of the Children, the observation that both
Children present as young and immature for their ages, the fact that
O.B. has been diagnosed with autism, that the AFC did not request an
interview of the Children, and the Court's determination that a Lincoln
hearing would not offer anything of value to the extensive proof that
has been presented at trial, the Court declined to conduct a Lincoln hearing. Tr. 1465:11-1466:1; see also Picot v. Barrett, 8 AD3d 288, 777 N.Y.S.2d 698, 699 (2d Dept. 2004).
Post-Trial Submissions
Plaintiff
Plaintiff argues that she was not permitted to enter crucial evidence
at trial including, for example, the Children's school records and
their son's autism history records, as well as testimony of school
personnel and the parties' former marriage counselor and former
psychologist. The Courts refers to the January 26, 2023 appearance,
NYSCEF Doc. No. 309 (1/26/23 Tr.), wherein the Court held that, among
other bases, the Children's educational records are irrelevant at trial
because neither Plaintiff nor Defendant accuses the other of failing to
meet the educational needs of the Children. Rather, the basis of
Defendant's application for a modification of custody is parental
alienation and willful interference with his parental rights and access.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court made inconsistent rulings regarding
the admission of educational records of O.B., including Individual
Education Program (IEP) records. The Court refers to its rulings at
trial wherein, the IEP records portion of the [Redacted] records was
excluded because they were not the records of [Redacted]; however, the
IEP records were then admitted based upon stipulation of the parties.
Tr. 1022:4-11.
Plaintiff also takes issue with the Court's position that it would
not allow evidence related to the events preceding the Revised Judgment
of Divorce and which did not have a nexus to the instant motions.
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that the Court admitted into evidence
two letters from pediatrician [Redacted] that pre-dated the Judgment of
the Divorce, the Court refers to its ruling at trial wherein it excluded
both letters. Tr. 176:14-25.
Plaintiff asserts that she should continue to have primary custody of
the Children based, in part, on the fact that she is not working during
her time with the Children, and she can therefore attend to O.B.'s
educational challenges.[3]
Plaintiff argues that Defendant would delegate childcare to sitters
given his work schedule. Plaintiff further states that Defendant has not
established how "he would make life better for the children if he was
awarded custody." NYSCEF Doc. No. 437 (Pl. Post-Tr. Sub.) at 14. Rather,
Plaintiff contends that the testimony at trial demonstrates that "kids
are doing well in school, happy and thriving." Id. She maintains
that she has always been the primary caregiver, and that she would
continue to foster a relationship between the Children and Defendant. Id. at 25.
Regarding the three CPS investigations, Plaintiff states that she
made one report based on her genuine concern for the Children and was
not the source in the other two investigations. Id. at 23. She
contends that the Children have not, in fact, been alienated from their
father, that she has not coached the Children in any respect, and that
she has not made false or disparaging statements about Defendant to the
Children. Id. at 15.
Defendant
Defendant argues that there has been a substantial change in
circumstances such that a modification of legal custody, physical
custody, and terms as to international travel is required in the best
interest of the Children. Defendant further seeks an order of the Court
directing Plaintiff to engage in therapy and "such other relief that
will deter Plaintiff's future weaponization of the legal system." Id.
at 26. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has engaged in an "insidious
and malicious strategy to destroy the children's relationship with their
father." NYSCEF Doc. No. 438 (Def. Post-Tr. Sub.) at 3. Defendant lays
out a history of Plaintiff levying false allegations against him both
pre- and post-judgment including allegations that he sexually abused
each of the Children, he was sexually abused by his mother, he failed to
supervise the Children, and he suffers from bipolar disorder. Defendant
argues that the testimony at trial and OCFS case records establish that
each of these allegations is demonstrably false. Defendant further
argues that Plaintiff has demonstrated a history of interfering with
Defendant's access and with his relationship with the Children.
Defendant further seeks a new access schedule as follows:
• Father shall have access starting on Thursday after school
(or 3pm if there is no school) through Tuesday before school (with
mother having Sunday dinner during Father's weekend), Mother shall have
access starting on Tuesday pick up after school (or 8am if there is no
school) through Wednesday after school (or 3pm if there is no school),
and Father shall have access starting on Wednesday after school through
Friday after school (or 3pm if there is no school).
• Mother shall have access starting Friday after school
through Sunday 8:00 PM, Father shall have access starting on Sunday 8:00
PM through Tuesday before school (or 8:00 AM if there is no school),
and Mother shall have access starting on Tuesday before school through
Thursday after school (or 3:00 PM if there is no school) (Tr 514:5-15).
Attorney for the Children
The AFC states her role pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 7.2(c), (d) to
zealously advocate for her clients' position. She states that, "My
clients are a very young 7 and 9 year old. Their wants and desires
change. They love both parents. Sometimes they want more time with [sic] their Father and sometimes they want more time with their Mother." NYSCEF Doc. No. 436 (AFC Post-Tr. Sub) at 21, n. 19.
The AFC agrees with Defendant that there has been a change in
circumstances as evidenced by Plaintiff's numerous allegations of sexual
abuse and inadequate guardianship against Defendant—which allegations
were unfounded by CPS and unsubstantiated by the testimony and
documentary evidence at trial. The AFC maintains that Plaintiff actively
tried to suspend Defendant's access and/or have his access supervised. Id.
at 23. The AFC contends that the parties' March 2019 Stipulation should
be modified and that "Plaintiff's inability to understand what she has
done wrong and what she is still doing wrong, clearly gives this Court
the right to change custody from the Mother to the Father with the
Father having final custody and decision making authority." Id.
at 25. Regarding the access schedule, the AFC argues that it should be
flipped such that Plaintiff has the schedule that Defendant has had
pursuant to the March 2019 Stipulation, subject to the parties' work
schedules.
Legal Analysis
"In any child custody dispute, the court's paramount concern is to
determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best
interests of the child." Matter of Olea v. Diaz, 194 AD3d 721, 722, 143 N.Y.S.3d 583 (2d Dept. 2021); see Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 171. There is "no prima facie right to custody of the child in either parent." DRL § 70(a); DRL § 240(1)(a). Factors to be considered include, inter alia,
"(1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available
home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each
parent's relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the
child, provide for the child's overall well-being, and foster the
child's relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child's
desires." Matter of Montebello v. Montebello, 184 AD3d 565, 566, 123 N.Y.S.3d 539 (2d Dept. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Matter of Olea,
194 AD3d at 722. Importantly, the parent's ability to place the child's
needs above his or her own in fostering a continued relationship with
the non-custodial parent is an appropriate consideration. Janecka v. Franklin, 150 AD2d 755, 756, 542 N.Y.S.2d 206 (2d Dept. 1989)
("mother's "unbridled" anger and hostility toward the defendant would
substantially interfere with her ability to place the needs of the
children before her own in fostering a continued relationship with the
noncustodial parent").
The weight to be afforded to each of the various factors is within
the discretion of the trial court and requires an evaluation of
testimony, character, and sincerity of all the parties involved. See Bourne v. Birstow, 66 AD3d 621, 622, 886 N.Y.S.2d 502 (2d Dept. 2009).
Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon assessment
of character and credibility, deference is accorded to the trial
court's credibility findings, which shall not be disturbed unless they
lack a sound and substantial basis in the record. See Matter v. Dolan Masterton, 121 AD3d 979, 980, 995 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2d Dept. 2014). The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses and evidence is afforded great weight on appeal. See Alper v. Alper, 77 AD3d 694, 909 N.Y.S.2d 131 (2d Dept. 2010).
"`Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of
custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that
there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is
necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child.'" Greenberg v. Greenberg, 144 AD3d 625, 629, 41 N.Y.S.3d 49 (2d Dept. 2016).
Priority is generally given to the first award of custody, whether it
was the result of a court order or a stipulation. Nevertheless, "an
agreement between the parties is but one factor to be weighed by the
court in deciding whether a change of custody is warranted." Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171, 436 N.E.2d 1260 (1982).
And, "where the first award is the result of a stipulation, as here, it
is entitled to less weight than a disposition after a plenary trial." Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736, 373, 589 N.Y.S2d 53 (2d. Dept. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
Credibility
Defendant presented as sincere and logical in his answers throughout
his testimony. His frustration at the events that have transpired at the
behest of Plaintiff was palpable. Defendant was eager to answer
questions; often times, the Court and his counsel instructed him to slow
down so that those present and the court stenographer could follow his
testimony. The substance of his testimony was clear and consistent, and
the Court did not identify any actual or apparent contradictions in his
testimony. He appeared to answer each question truthfully and
thoughtfully.
Plaintiff presented as calm and mild-mannered in her demeanor. She
conveyed an attentiveness and sincerity when talking about the Children.
However, her answers on both direct and cross-examination meandered and
were evasive and convoluted. See Tr. 1172:8-17; 1196:12-19. In
that respect, Plaintiff was an uncooperative witness. The Court,
declining to engage in Plaintiff's verbal gymnastics, repeatedly
directed Plaintiff to answer only the question posed. See Tr.
981:3-4; 1191:15; 1194:14-16; 1217:12-17. Certain of Plaintiff's answers
were conflicting and inconsistent revealing an inability or an
unwillingness to be candid and forthcoming with the Court. For example,
Plaintiff maintains her concern that Defendant may abscond to France
with the Children yet provides no reliable evidence that forms the basis
of her belief. See 6/2/23 Tr. at 18:3-4 ("this Court finds that
Plaintiff's purported concerns are completely without merit."). A second
example involves Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant received a
diagnosis of bipolar disorder where she concedes that the source
([Redacted]) denied making a bipolar diagnosis of Defendant. See Tr. 1302:18-21.
Most concerning to this Court, however, is that Plaintiff's actions
and testimony as to the allegations against Defendant are irreconcilable
with her contemporaneous actions—it is implausible that a parent who
suspects, believes, or is told that his/her child has been abused by the
other parent would not immediately seek to suspend access, file a
criminal complaint, cooperate with the CPS investigation, and consent to
full and unfettered access to the underlying records and reports of
said allegations by forensic evaluators and the trier of fact. The
Court's finding is consistent with [Redacted]'s observations:
"she tries to absolve herself of responsibility in these
allegations against [Redacted] by stating, `I remind the Court, I never
curtailed Defendant's access and I never filed a Motion to do so. Even
after the incident with my son on September 9, 2019 when [O.B.] told me
his father put his finger in his anus, four penis infections, leaving
our young children (one autistic) riding their bikes unsupervised, and
[A.B.]'s bizarre urology issues directly after his weekend visitation, I
did not stop the visits or file any motions.' This statement made by
[Redacted] makes no sense and hardly exonerates her from responsibility
for creating this mayhem. Obviously, if she actually thought that
[Redacted] sexually abused the children and created penile infections
for their son, any responsible parent, especially one with custodial
responsibilities, would have moved heaven and earth to prevent
[Redacted] from ever having access to his children. In fact, this is not
what transpired." Ct. Ex. 18 at 51.
Substantial Change in Circumstances
A substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of a
custody agreement has been found where one party makes repeated,
unfounded, and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse against the
non-custodial parent, see, e.g., Honeywell v. Honeywell, 39 AD3d 857, 858, 835 N.Y.S.2d 327 (2d Dept. 2007)
("mother's repeated and unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against
the father constituted conduct so inconsistent with the best interests
of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that she is
unfit to act as a custodial parent"); where one party attempts to
alienate the children from the other parent, see, e.g., Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649, 649, 758 N.Y.S.2d 155 (2d Dept. 2003)
(affirming award of sole custody to father because the mother's
"conduct in alienating the children from their father is an act so
inconsistent with the best interests of the children"); where one party
attempts to impede the other parent's relationship with the children,
such as by interfering with the other parent's visitation/access, see McClurkin v. Bailey, 78 AD3d 707, 708, 911 N.Y.S.2d 99 (2d Dept. 2010)
(finding a sufficient change of circumstances to award father sole
custody where mother interfered with visitation rights, phone access
time, and made unfounded reports of child abuse against father); and
where "the parties' relationship is so acrimonious that it effectively
precludes joint decision-making." Picado v. Doan, 90 AD3d 932, 933, 934 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2d Dept. 2011).
Here, Defendant has established there has been a substantial change in
circumstances since the parties entered into the March 2019 Stipulation.
In its June 2, 2023 Decision and Order (Mot. Seq. No. 24), this Court
held that Defendant had established that there has been a substantial
change in circumstances, finding that "[a]lthough the record is clear
that the parties' relationship has been tenuous and acrimonious
throughout the proceedings—and prior to the dissolution of the marriage,
the testimony and evidence offered at trial demonstrate that (1)
Plaintiff has levied serious allegations against Defendant that have
resulted in involvement of the judicial system and Child Protective
Services, (2) that have negatively impacted Defendant's access and
visitation with the Children; and (3) that have negatively interfered
with the Children's relationship with their father." NYSCEF Doc. No. 402
(6/2/23 Tr.) at 15-16.
Repeated and Unfounded Allegations
The record establishes that Plaintiff made and repeated the following allegations as to Defendant to third-parties:
Statement Third-Party
Defendant is bipolar with psychotic tendencies [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted],
[Redacted]
Defendant was sexually abused by his mother [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted]
Defendant failed to supervise the Children [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted]
O.B. suffered from penis infections that followed visits with Defendant and/or developed while in Defendant's [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted],
care [Redacted]
Defendant sexually abused O.B. [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted]
A.B. suffered from urinary issues that followed visits with Defendant [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted], [Redacted]
The testimony and evidence offered at trial demonstrate that each of
these statements is demonstrably false. Furthermore, the CPS
investigations into the allegations involving the Children determined
that the reports were unfounded. The testimony of Defendant and
[Redacted], the [Redacted] (which considered evaluations by [Redacted]
and [Redacted]) and [Redacted] Reports, and the fact that the purported
source ([Redacted]) of Plaintiff's allegation denied having made such
diagnosis establish that Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant is
bipolar with psychotic tendencies and/or received such diagnosis is
false.
The testimony of Defendant and [Redacted] demonstrate that
Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant was sexually abused by his mother
is unsubstantiated.
The May 2019 CPS investigation and Defendant's testimony demonstrate
that Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant failed to supervise the
Children on the weekend of May 17, 2019 is unsubstantiated. Further, the
Court finds it troubling that [Redacted] testified that, despite having
no experience with CPS, she believed that if CPS determined the
Children were unsafe, they would order supervised visits. In fact,
Plaintiff's friend, [Redacted], testified that in/around April 2019,
Plaintiff told her that she was seeking to have Defendant's access
terminated or supervised. See Tr. 1097:20-25.
The testimony of [Redacted] and [Redacted], the two CPS
investigations, [Redacted] Records, and the [Redacted] and [Redacted]
Reports demonstrate that Plaintiff's allegations that O.B. suffered from
penis infections following visits with Defendant and/or developed while
in Defendant's care are unsubstantiated, as is any suggestion that
Defendant sexually abused O.B. The [Redacted] Report addressed this
allegation directly: "Such allegations persist in promoting a disservice
to the integrity of [Redacted] if there were actually an infection,
which always implies a sexually transmitted disease in young children,
which lab reports would document as to the specific nature of the
infection Had there been a valid concern of a sexually transmitted
disease with the father as a suspect, [Redacted] would have been denied
access to his children and likely arrested and incarcerated. None of
this happened because the allegation is without merit." Ct. Ex. 18 at
51. Furthermore, the testimony of Defendant, [Redacted], [Redacted], and
[Redacted], the CPS investigations, the CAC interview of O.B., and the
[Redacted] and [Redacted] Reports demonstrate that Plaintiff's
allegation that Defendant sexually abused O.B. (by inserting his fingers
into O.B.'s anus) is unsubstantiated.
The testimony of [Redacted] and [Redacted], the two CPS
investigations, [Redacted] Records, and the [Redacted] and [Redacted]
Reports demonstrate that Plaintiff's allegations that A.B. suffered from
urinary issues following visits with Defendant are unsubstantiated.
Despite Plaintiff's position that she did not make direct allegations of
sexual abuse involving A.B., see, e.g., Ct. Ex. 4 (Pl. Aff. Mot.
Seq. No. 20) at 7 ("I made no allegations regarding the same"), it is
apparent to this Court that Plaintiff raised the specter of sexual abuse
by alleging that A.B. suffered from "bizarre urinary issues" and
possibly from an infection—which was never diagnosed even after
Plaintiff took A.B. to a second doctor for testing—following visits with
Defendant.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff made repeated and
unfounded allegations against Defendant, including allegations that he
sexually abused the Children, thereby establishing a sufficient change
in circumstances. See Fargasch v. Alves, 116 AD3d 774, 775, 983 N.Y.S.2d 607 (2d Dept. 2014) (mother's unfounded allegations of sexual abuse of a child established a change in circumstances).
Alienation
An attempt by one parent to alienate the children from the other
parent is a factor in determining whether a change in circumstances
exists. "The judicial refrain is unmistakable: a concerted effort by one
parent to interfere with the other parent's contact with the child is
so inimical to the best interests of the child, that it, per se, raises a strong possibility that the interfering parent is unfit to act as a custodial parent." J.F. v. D.F., 61 Misc 3d 1226 (A), 112 N.Y.S.3d 438, 2018 NY Slip Op. at
*4 (Sup. Ct. 2018). Here, Defendant has established that Plaintiff has
engaged in alienation thereby supporting his application for a change in
custody.
Defendant offered credible evidence and testimony that Plaintiff demeaned Defendant to the Children and to others as discussed supra.
The evidence further demonstrates that Plaintiff has inappropriately
involved the Children in this litigation—for example, the fact that the
Children were told about an "agreement." The examples of such statements
as captured in audio recordings abound: "Mommy said I need to grab your
phone and then I need to call the policeman," "She said I could get a
new dad," "Are you our real dad?" (this statement was corroborated by
[Redacted]), "Mommy said we need to choose," "anyone else goes to heaven
but not you," "She said you only do work and never play with me,"
"Mommy just random married with you," "Mommy say Papa scary." Some of
these statements were also repeated by the Children to the AFC. Ct. Ex. 6
at 2 ("Some of what [Redacted] stated has been told to me by my
clients. I have placed some of my client's statements, said to their
Father, on the record.").
Plaintiff disputes that she made any of these statements to the
Children and argues that there "is no smoking gun here." NYSCEF Doc. No.
437 at 23. The Court disagrees. Logic dictates that young children at
the ages of three and five could not possibly articulate these words or
concepts in a vacuum. For example, the idea that the Children would need
to "choose", "get a new dad," or are subject to an "agreement"
logically flow from the premise that they either heard these comments or
were told these comments by their mother, who they explicitly identify
as the source of these comments.
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that there has been no actual
alienation—a conclusion conceded by Defendant—and therefore, there can
be no such finding. Plaintiff does not offer any case law to support her
contention that because children enjoy a positive relationship with the
other parent despite efforts to alienate the children, there can be no
such finding. However, the Court's finding is that Plaintiff's efforts
to alienate the Children from their father failed—fortunately.
Ultimately, the nature of these statements made by Plaintiff to the
Children about their father is a form of alienation which reflects
adversely on her fitness as a parent, and violates the parties March
2019 Stipulation.
Interference
Courts have found that interference with another parent's visitation and access time constitutes a change in circumstances. See, e.g., Tori v. Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 654, 958 N.Y.S.2d 510 (2d Dept. 2013); Goldstein v. Goldstein, 68 AD3d 717, 720, 889 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dept. 2009).
Here, the record sets forth that Plaintiff directly interfered with
Defendant's visitation rights and access time by filing an application
on October 8, 2019 that repeated unfounded and unsubstantiated
allegations that O.B. "told Affiant that his father placed his fingers
in his anus," that "our daycare provider, [Redacted], advised that
Defendant has become belligerent, threatening, and intimidating
[Redacted]," that "[a]fter his rant, he left A.B. in the care of
[Redacted] who contacted the local police to make a report of the
foregoing." Ct. Ex. 30 at 2, 4.
Having the benefit of a full and complete trial, this Court finds
that the overwhelming evidence establishes that Plaintiff's application
was premised on unsubstantiated allegations that resulted directly and
indirectly (through delays perpetuated by Plaintiff) in Defendant's
losing his agreed-upon access time between October 4, 2019 through June
26, 2020.
Joint Custody No Longer Suitable: Deterioration of the Parties' Relationship
The record establishes that the parties' relationship has become so
acrimonious that they cannot communicate or engage effectively in
decisions that foster the best interests of the Children. See O'Connell v. McDermott, 80 AD3d 701, 701-702, 915 N.Y.S.2d 143 (2d Dept. 2011)
("joint custody is encouraged `as a voluntary alternative for
relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in a mature civilized
fashion'") (internal citations omitted). Examples of the deterioration
of their relationship include: Plaintiff did not contact Defendant about
the "bike incident" prior to filing the CPS report; Plaintiff's efforts
to alienate the Children from Defendant; Plaintiff's involvement of law
enforcement and CPS to thwart Defendant's access with the Children; the
commencement of numerous court proceedings and motions in this case
since the entry of the Revised Judgment of Divorce; and the parents'
inability to engage regarding an access schedule for the Children where
the Court directed that the parties share equal access. The Court notes
that Plaintiff declined to even participate in a discussion during the
January 30, 2023 appearance as to an access schedule that best served
the Children.
Accordingly, the trial testimony establishes a change in
circumstances supporting Defendant's application for a modification of
custody.
Best Interests of the Child
The Court, having found a change in circumstances that warrants a
modification of custody, turns to the determination of the best
interests of the Children. While the Court may, in its discretion,
consider a variety of factors that bear upon the best interests of the
child in a custody determination, the following non-exhaustive factors
are of particular relevance here: the demonstrated willingness to
prioritize the needs of the children over the parties' own needs and to
foster a relationship with the non-custodial parent. See Matter of Murray v. Hall, 294 AD2d 504, 504-505 (2d Dept. 2002). Furthermore, New York courts have found that a parent's false accusations of sexual abuse by the other parent, see, e.g., Altieri v. Altieri, 156 AD3d 667, 669, 66 N.Y.S.3d 323 (2d Dept. 2017), Honeywell, 39 AD3d at 858, and/or efforts to alienate the child from the other parent, see, e.g., Vargas v. Gutierrez, 155 AD3d 751, 753, 64 N.Y.S.3d 76 (2d Dept. 2017); Stern, 304 AD2d at 649, are inconsistent with the best interests of the child.
In her post-trial submission, Plaintiff ostensibly argues that the
Court should consider other factors. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions,
the Court finds that there was no evidence or credible testimony to
support a finding that—since the Revised Judgment of Divorce was
entered—Defendant is mentally or emotionally unstable, has perpetrated
domestic violence or exposed the Children to domestic violence, or has
abused or neglected the Children in any respect.
This Court rejects Plaintiff's contention that the custody
arrangement set forth in the March 2019 Stipulation should remain on the
basis that Plaintiff has been the primary caregiver for the Children
and is better able to attend to the needs of the Children—specifically,
the special needs of O.B., and because the Children "have been doing
very well under her care and thriving." NYSCEF Doc. No. 437 at 14.
Plaintiff's argument that Defendant, due to his work schedule, is likely
to delegate parenting to third-party caregivers is also rejected, as
Plaintiff herself testified to having morning and afternoon sitters in
addition to backup sitters. Tr. at 1006. Plaintiff entirely misses the
mark by failing to acknowledge that her actions have directly interfered
with Defendant's access with the Children and that her efforts to
alienate the Children is the basis, among others, for the instant trial.
The Court finds that each party is a loving and concerned parent, and
that the Children love both of their parents. Both parents are "fit
caretakers," as observed by [Redacted], capable of attending to the
Children's needs, including educational needs and O.B.'s special needs. See
Ct. Ex. 18 at 56. However, Plaintiff is unable to compartmentalize her
negative emotions towards Defendant in a manner that prioritizes the
needs of the Children over her own. Plaintiff repeatedly levied
unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations against Defendant, and those
accusations required the Children, at ages three and five, to be
"subjected to intrusive physical examinations" and interviewed by CAC,
CPS, and forensic evaluators. See Aponte v. Jagnarain, 205 AD3d 803, 169 N.Y.S.3d 105 (2d Dept. 2022).
"These are acts `of interference with the parent-child relationship so
inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong
probability that the mother is unfit to act as custodial parent'." Kortright v. Bhoorasingh, 137 AD3d 1037, 1038, 27 N.Y.S.3d 235 (2d Dept. 2016).
In that respect, the Court agrees with [Redacted]'s observation that
Plaintiff has systematically used the Children as pawns in her campaign
to strip Defendant of his parental rights and access. It is unfathomable
to this Court that a parent would proactively inject their children
into custody proceedings and subject them—in their most vulnerable
incarnations—to physical examinations and third-party investigations and
interviews.
Likewise, Plaintiff has placed her own self-interest above the
interests of the Children as evidenced by her interference with
Defendant's visitation rights and demeaning and disparaging comments
made to the Children about Defendant, that were repeated by the Children
to their father and third parties. This Court agrees with the
recommendations of the [Redacted] Report, which states that "[Redacted]
has shirked her responsibility as the primary custodial parent with the
obligation of supporting [Redacted]'s role except where it suits her
need." Ct. Ex. 18 at 34.
By contrast, despite Defendant's admitted frustration and resentment
towards Plaintiff, he is not seeking to suspend Plaintiff's access to
the Children, nor does he claim that Plaintiff is an unsuitable parent.
The credible testimony and evidence at trial establishes that Defendant
is a loving and caring parent and presents no danger to the Children,
consistent with the [Redacted] and [Redacted] Reports. See, e.g.,
Ct. Ex. 18 at 34 ("there is no evidence to suggest that [Redacted]
presents a clear danger to the children"). [Redacted] testified that
Defendant is attentive to the Children's needs; his demeanor is loving
and gentle. Tr. 216:11-25. [Redacted] testified that Defendant is a
"on-hands father," "well-prepared," "knew exactly what to get the
children," and managed the Children well, including O.B. who is
autistic. Tr. 54:15-23; 58:19-59:4.
The Court further finds that Defendant is more likely to foster a
relationship with Plaintiff. "One of the primary responsibilities of a
custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the children
and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure
such meaningful contact between the children and the other parent is a
factor to be considered in making a custody determination." Wright v. Perry, 169 AD3d 910, 911-912, 95 N.Y.S.3d 108 (2d Dept. 2019)
(internal citations omitted). Here, Defendant has established that
Plaintiff's false allegations, purposeful actions to alienate the
Children from him, and interference with his contact with the Children
demonstrates her unwillingness to foster a relationship with Defendant.
Notably, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant has not and cannot
foster a relationship between the Children and their mother, or that he
has failed to abide by the Children's enumerated rights contained in the
March 2019 Stipulation. In fact, Defendant credibly testified, "I never
ever want my children to know what [Redacted] did. I don't want them to
be mad at their mother or realize the horrible thing she did. I just
want them, again, to be able to grow up peacefully and not being
subjected to such abuse." Tr. 512:5-8. Defendant has demonstrated a
superior ability to handle the antagonist nature of the parties'
relationship in a manner that serves the best interests of the Children.
Accordingly, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the
Children to grant Defendant's application to modify the March 22, 2019
Stipulation Article III (Custody and Visitation) so as to award him sole
legal custody and primary physical custody of the Children, subject to
the access schedule as set forth below.
Access Schedule
In fashioning an access schedule, the Court is guided by a schedule
that serves the best interests of the Children. In doing so, the Court
considers the stability and predictability of the schedule, the number
of exchanges, and the ages of the Children. The Court directs that the
parties adhere to the following:
Week 1:
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Father Start after school
or 3:00 p.m. if no Overnight Overnight Overnight End before school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Start after school or 3:00 p.m. if no school
school Overnight Overnight
Mother Start after school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Overnight End before school or 3:00 p.m. if no school
Weel: 2
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
Father Overnight End before school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Start at End before school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Start after
7:00 p.m. school or 3:00
Overnight p.m. if no school
Overnight
Mother Start after school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Overnight End at Start after school or 3:00 p.m. if no school Overnight End before
Overnight 7:00 p.m. Overnight p.m. if no school
In the event that one party cannot exercise their overnight access
time with the Children, the other party shall be given the right of
first refusal. The Court further modifies the March 22, 2019 Stipulation
regarding telephone/Facetime, see Ct. Ex. 1 at 12, as follows:
Each parent shall have the right to initiate communication with the
Children by telephone, FaceTime, or similar means at 7:00 p.m. when the
parent is not exercising his or her access time.
Decision-Making
The Court directs that, following meaningful consultation with
Plaintiff, Defendant shall have final decision-making authority as to
all major decisions including medical/dental/psychological/psychiatric
treatment, religion, education, and extra-curricular activities.
Meaningful consultation shall mean that each party shall convey to the
other party his/her opinions on whatever decisions affecting the
children need to be resolved via Our Family Wizard, setting forth
the issue that needs to be resolved and that parent's proposed
resolution at least three (3) days in advance of such decision being
made.
Final decision on that issue shall not be made until after
consideration of the other parent's position, and a written response to
same is made. The parties are encouraged to consider deferring to the
professional in whatever field requires determination. In case of a
medical emergency, each parent shall immediately, or as soon as
practicable, notify the other. In such cases, the parent who has custody
of the child is authorized to make emergent decisions consistent with
the recommendations of the then present medical provider.
Fostering Parent/Children Relationships
Neither party is to unreasonably interfere with the Children's
desires to communicate with the other parent when not in that parent's
custody. Neither party shall disparage the other party in the presence
of the Children, or allow any third-party to do so. The parties shall
afford the Children the enumerated rights as outlined in the March 2019
Stipulation at Paragraph 11.
Civil Contempt and Sanctions
Defendant seeks a finding of civil contempt against Plaintiff based
upon the false allegations made against him, interference with his
access with the Children, and violation of the Children's Bill of
Rights. See Ct. Ex. 11 (Mot. Seq. No. 27). "A motion to punish a
party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court, and the movant bears the burden of proving contempt by clear and
convincing evidence." Matter of Hughes v. Kameva, 96 AD3d 845, 846 (2d Dept. 2012); see Cassarino v. Cassarino, 149 AD3d 689, 690 (2d Dept. 2017).
The movant must establish that: (1) a lawful order of the court,
clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) the order
was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its
terms, and (3) the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct. See Judiciary Law § 753[A][3]; El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 (2015).
Defendant further seeks the imposition of financial sanctions on
Plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1.1(c), which provides that the Court
may, in its discretion, award fees, costs, and sanctions upon "any
party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in
frivolous conduct." Defendant acknowledges that the award of counsel
fees under this theory is intended to be punitive and to punish past
conduct. Defendant further states that "[t]here is no sanction or amount
of money that can make up for the time my children and I lost (76
overnights) while I proved to the Court's satisfaction the falsity of
Plaintiff's allegations so that our access was fully restored." Ct. Ex.
11 at 6.
The Court, in its discretion, declines to make a finding of civil
contempt against Plaintiff or impose sanctions on her. Although the
Court finds that Plaintiff's conduct violates the March 2019 Stipulation
and has delayed and prolonged these proceedings in a manner that has
wasted judicial resources, such a ruling would only frustrate an end to
this litigation and fuel the existing acrimony. Further, the Court has
yet to resolve the financial issues in this matter, which will include a
determination as to Defendant's application for counsel fees and
recalculation of child support.
Conclusion
The Court finds that it is Plaintiff's deliberate and reckless
actions that have resulted in the post-judgment custody dispute
presented to the Court, and said actions have only served to harm the
Children. Plaintiff has systematically and surgically waged a campaign
to discredit Defendant and force him out of the Children's lives. This
campaign involved law enforcement, social services, medical
professionals, childcare providers, and the judicial system—each of whom
is charged with protecting the Children as their roles require and has,
in fact, discharged those respective duties. This campaign inserted the
Children into the parties' disputes, and directly harmed Defendant by
limiting his access with the Children for prolonged periods of time,
subjecting him to investigation and reputational damage, and forcing him
to incur financial costs to litigate this dispute. Despite the
overwhelming evidence in this proceeding, Plaintiff refuses to accept
the falsity of her allegations. The Court is guided by "what is for the
best interests of the child[ren] and what will best promote [their]
welfare and happiness," Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171, 436 N.E.2d 1260 (1982), and accordingly, has awarded sole legal and primary physical custody to Defendant.
While the Court has declined to find Plaintiff in civil contempt,
impose sanctions, or grant such other relief as may be available, the
Court cautions Plaintiff that if her actions persist, the Court will be
forced to consider further modification as to custody and access so as
to serve the best interests of the Children.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the Court grants Defendant's Motion Sequence Numbers 20
and 27 to the extent that the Court modifies the parties' Stipulation
and Order Regarding Custody, Access and Child Support, dated March 22,
2019 ("March 2019 Stipulation") and Revised Judgment of Divorce so as to
award sole legal and primary physical custody of the parties' children,
O.B. (born [Redacted], 2013) and A.B. (born [Redacted], 2015)
(collectively, the "Children") to Defendant [Redacted], subject to the
access schedule set forth herein and effective October 12, 2023; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Court denies Defendant's Motion Sequence Number 27
seeking to adjudge Plaintiff in contempt based upon her violation of the
March 2019 Stipulation and the April 24, 2019 Revised Judgment of
Divorce; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Court grants Defendant's Motion Sequence Number 27
seeking to enforce Article III of the March 2019 Stipulation and the
April 24, 2019 Revised Judgment of Divorce by directing that Plaintiff
immediately, now and in the future, cease and desist disparaging the
Defendant to the Children and influencing the Children so as to
prejudice the Children against Defendant; and it is further,
ORDERED that parties shall appear for a pre-trial conference on
December 8, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1002 as to the branches of
Defendant's Motion Sequence Numbers 20, 24, and 27 seeking to
recalculate child support in light of the Court's modification of
custody as set forth herein, and seeking an award of reasonable counsel
fees, expert fees, and related expenses in connection with this
application, pursuant to Article IX, Paragraph 10 of the March 2019
Stipulation, DRL § 238 and 22 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
(NYCRR) 130-1.1(c); and it is further,
ORDERED that all other relief requested and not decided herein in denied.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
[1]
On July 14, 2023, after completion of the trial and submission of
post-trial submissions, Plaintiff filed a Consent to Change Attorney
Form whereby she substituted herself pro se in place of [Redacted]. NYSCEF Doc. No. 443.
[2]
The admissibility of the audio recordings was raised at trial by
Plaintiff, who argued that the recordings contain inadmissible hearsay
and are unreliable because, inter alia, they were made by
Defendant on his cell phone. The Court overruled these objections on the
basis that Defendant's counsel laid the proper foundation for each of
the recordings offered into evidence, see Lipton v. New York City Transit Authority, 11 AD3d 201, 782 N.Y.S.2d 269 (1st Dept. 2004)
(audiotapes admissible where investigator who made the tape and
participated in the conversation testified that the recording completely
and accurately reproduced the conversation, and where the court found
the recording sufficiently audible to justify its admission), and the
content was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but
rather to explain Defendant's actions in connection with the allegations
being levied against him and certain incidents, including the October
2, 2019 daycare incident, as well as to evidence Defendant's argument
that Plaintiff coached the Children. See, e.g., Mateo v. Tuttle, 26 AD3d 731, 809 N.Y.S.2d 699 (4th Dept. 2006).
[3]
During a September 26, 2023 appearance, Plaintiff stated to the Court
that she recently (approximately two weeks prior) commenced new
full-time employment as a graphic designer for an architecture firm."
Posts
