State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 7, 2016 520653 

________________________________

In the Matter of DESIREE

BARROWS,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HARVEY SHERWOOD,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 18, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Pamela B. Bleiwas, Ithaca, for appellant.

Jessica C. Eggleston, Johnson City, for respondent.

Susan B. McNeil, Ithaca, attorney for the child.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County

(Cassidy, J.), entered January 29, 2015, which partially

dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent

(hereinafter the father) are the parents of a son (born in 2004). 

In May 2013, Family Court (Sherman, J.) awarded sole custody to

the father, with liberal visitation to the mother. On appeal, we

affirmed the custody award (Matter of Sherwood v Barrows, 124

AD3d 940 [2015]). In so doing, we agreed with Family Court's

assessment that the mother created instability in the child's

living arrangements and schooling, and disregarded the father's
-2- 520653 

visitation rights. Less than nine months after Family Court's

May 2013 order, the mother commenced this custody modification

proceeding seeking sole custody of the child on the ground that

the father was failing to address the child's schooling

difficulties, hygiene issues and health needs. Following factfinding and Lincoln hearings, Family Court (Cassidy, J.) granted

the mother increased visitation, but continued the father's sole

custody of the child. The mother now appeals. 

Family Court initially found that most of the mother's

arguments did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances

to warrant modification of the prior order. Indeed, the record

makes clear that the child's poor performance in school predates

the May 2013 order and that there has been no marked change in

his overall physical health since then. However, the court did

find a change in circumstances due to the child's "increasingly

concerning" troubles with nighttime incontinence and other

toileting issues. As the parties do not dispute these findings,

the only issue is whether continuing sole custody in favor of the

father is in the child's best interests. "A best interests

analysis involves the examination of several factors, including

'the relative fitness, stability, past performance, and home

environment of the parents, as well as their ability to guide and

nurture the child[ ] and foster a relationship with the other

parent'" (Matter of Blagg v Downey, 132 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2015],

quoting Matter of Parchinsky v Parchinsky, 114 AD3d 1040, 1041

[2014]). In reviewing Family Court's order, "[w]e accord great

deference to [its] factual findings and credibility

determinations given its superior position to observe and assess

the witnesses' testimony and demeanor firsthand, and will not

disturb its custodial determination if supported by a sound and

substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Daniel TT. v Diana

TT., 127 AD3d 1514, 1515 [2015]; see Matter of Joshua UU. v

Martha VV., 118 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2014]).

Here, the record establishes that, at a minimum, the father

is no less capable of providing stability for the child than when

he was granted sole custody in May 2013. He continues to hold a

steady job and now jointly owns a home with his girlfriend. A

Tompkins County Department of Social Services caseworker

testified that she visited the home and found it to be a safe and
-3- 520653 

appropriate environment for the child. Although the child

continues to struggle in school, there is ample evidence that the

father, his girlfriend and his mother all are proactive in their

efforts to assist the child with his academic performance. As

for the child's alleged hygiene and toileting issues, the

evidence revealed that appropriate steps had been taken to

address these concerns and, significantly, both parents testified

that the child was having fewer issues in that regard.

Although it appears, as Family Court pointed out, that the

mother's circumstances have improved, she conceded that an award

of sole custody to her would require the child to move to a new

school district in a different county, an especially concerning

disruption in light of the child's current academic difficulties. 

The record also reflects that awarding custody to the mother may

negatively impact the child's relationship with the father, as

the mother has disparaged the father in the child's presence when

discussing visitation and has, on occasion, created difficulties

for the father related to the weekly exchange of the child. 

Finally, while the child's wishes are to be taken into account,

the caseworker's testimony that he expressed a preference to live

with the mother is not dispositive (see Matter of Lawton v

Lawton, 136 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2016]; Matter of Rivera v LaSalle,

84 AD3d 1436, 1438 [2011]). In any event, the caseworker's

testimony suggests that the child's preference was based, in

part, upon the mother's ability to provide the child with

luxuries that the father cannot afford. Based upon our review of

the record as a whole, we find that the evidence provides a sound

and substantial basis for Family Court's determination that

continuing sole custody with the father is in the child's best

interests.

Peters, P.J., Garry and Devine, JJ., concur.
-4- 520653 

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court