Olufsen v. Plummer

• Decision Date: 26 April 2013
• Citation: 105 A.D.3d 1418,963 N.Y.S.2d 804,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02918
• Parties: In the Matter of Bradley OLUFSEN, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Tricia PLUMMER, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

105 A.D.3d 1418

963 N.Y.S.2d 804

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02918

In the Matter of Bradley OLUFSEN, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.Tricia PLUMMER, Respondent–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

April 26, 2013.

Deborah J. Scinta, Orchard Park, for Respondent–Appellant.

Bouvier Partnership, LLP, East Aurora (Roger T. Davison of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.

David C. Schopp, Attorney for the Child, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel), for Maci L.O.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the parties' child to petitioner father and “liberal and frequent” visitation to her. Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that Family Court's best interests determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and that the court did not fail to consider the appropriate factors in awarding sole custody to the father ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260;Matter of Tarrant v. Ostrowski, 96 A.D.3d 1580, 1582, 947 N.Y.S.2d 726,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 69170;Matter of Booth v. Booth, 8 A.D.3d 1104, 1104–1105, 778 N.Y.S.2d 643,lv. denied3 N.Y.3d 607, 785 N.Y.S.2d 25, 818 N.E.2d 667;see generally Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 210, 582 N.Y.S.2d 863). We note that “[i]t is well settled ... that [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 ... as to, per se, raise a strong probability that [the interfering parent] is unfit to act as custodial parent” ( Matter of Orzech v. Nikiel, 91 A.D.3d 1305, 1306, 937 N.Y.S.2d 509 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Marino v. Marino, 90 A.D.3d 1694, 1695, 935 N.Y.S.2d 818). Under such circumstances, we conclude that the child's emotional development is better served by sole custody to the father ( see generally Fox, 177 A.D.2d at 210, 582 N.Y.S.2d 863). Here, we note that there was evidence in the record that the mother sought to interfere with the relationship between the father and the child by pressuring the child into making groundless allegations of sexual abuse against the father and by repeating those groundless allegations.

We reject the mother's contention that the court erred in relying heavily on the investigative report and opinion testimony of a licensed clinical psychologist. The psychologist met with the parties individually, visited their homes when the child was present, administered psychological tests to the parties and the child, and consulted with caseworkers with the Erie County Department of Social Services. At the hearing, the psychologist testified that the mother exhibited “a lack of emotional [attunement]” with the child and that they had an “unhealthy dynamic.” He further testified that the mother could not effectively communicate with the father with respect to the child and that joint custody would be inappropriate. Although we agree with the mother that the opinion of a court-ordered psychologist is only one factor to be considered in a custody proceeding ( see generally Matter of Alexandra H. v. Raymond B.H., 37 A.D.3d 1125, 1126, 829 N.Y.S.2d 778), we conclude that there was additional evidence in the record supporting the court's determination that the father should have custody of the child. Moreover, we see no basis for...