DECISION AND ORDER On September 8, 2021, Katherine R. filed a petition for Modification of An Order of Another Court and Transfer Accepted. regarding a prior order dated November 30, 2015. On February 21, 2023, Katherine R. filed a petition for Violation of Order of Custody and Violation of Order of Visitation regarding a prior order dated November 29, 2022. Katherine R. and Zacaria P. P. Jr. were excused from appearing on January 25, 2024. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The instant case initially came before the Family Court through the filing of a paternity case by Katherine R. (the “Mother”) against Zaccaria P. (the “Father”) as to the subject child, Joseph T. (the “Child”). An order of filiation was entered on consent on April 3, 2013. On August 2, 2013, the Father filed a custody petition as to the Child and subsequently, on September 20, 2013, a child protective case was filed against the Mother as to the Child. The Child was initially placed with his maternal grandmother and then with the Commissioner of Social Services. On September 22, 2014, the court ordered that overnight visits commence between the Child and the Father with an extended visit to follow. The Child was placed on an extended visit with the Father on November 10, 2014 and on June 1, 2015, the Court issued a temporary order of custody with joint legal custody to be shared between the Mother and Father. The order allowed primary physical custody to the Mother with parenting time to the Father from Mondays to Wednesdays. Subsequently, on September 9, 2015, the Court issued an order again placing the Child on an extended visit with the Father and on September 16, 2015, the Court modified the order of disposition in the Article Ten neglect case as to the Child and placed him with the Father under the supervision of the Administration of Children’s Services. On November 30, 2015, the Father’s custody petition was satisfied on consent of all parties through a final order of joint legal custody with primary physical custody of the Child to the Father and parenting time with the Mother every weekend from Friday to Monday. On September 8, 2021, the Mother filed a petition seeking to modify the November 30, 2015 final order of custody to grant her primary physical custody of the Child. That petition was filed in Westchester County and transferred to New York County. Of note, at the time of filing, the Mother resided in New Jersey and the Father resided in Yonkers. With her petition, the Mother also filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to transfer physical custody of the Child to the Mother and prohibit relocation of the Child by the Father to Virginia. On November 3, 2021, the Mother filed a petition seeking enforcement of the order of visitation and on November 17, 2021, the Westchester County Family Court determined that proper venue is in New York County and transferred this proceeding to New York County Family Court. Following transfer to New York County, the Mother filed an Order to Show Cause seeking residential custody and / or extensive parenting time with the Child. That Order to Show Cause was granted in part on March 14, 2022, with the issuance of an order granting parenting time between the Mother and the Child weekly from Friday at 7:00 pm until Sunday at 5:00 pm and during all school vacations. The Father was ordered to transport the Child to and from the Mother for such parenting time. TRIAL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE The trial on the Mother’s modification of custody petition was scheduled for June 15, 2022, however, on June 6, 2022, the Mother filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus demanding that the Father produce the Child for Court-ordered visitation. On June 15, 2022, the Mother began her direct case on her petitions. The Court took judicial notice of the final order of custody and visitation entered on November 3, 2015 on Docket V42967/13. The Mother testified, in relevant part, that in November 2016, she had relocated to Florida and that the parties agreed to modify the visitation arrangement at that point. She further testified that in July 2017, she relocated back to New York City and resumed weekend visits with the Child. This continued until March 2020 when the visits were suspended until May 2020 due to COVID-19 and the visits resumed in May 2020 and continued until February 2021. According to the Mother, in February 2021, the Father began to cancel visits between the Mother and the Child, cancelling one visit in February 2021, two visits in March 2021, one visit in April 2021, one visit in May 2021, one visit in July 2021 and three visits in August 2021. In August 2021, the Father informed the Mother that was he going on vacation with the Child but the Mother did not consent to a vacation or for a cancellation of her visit with the Child. The Mother testified further that in September 2021, she learned from the Child that the Father relocated to Virginia. The Mother stated that the Father did not inform her about this relocation nor did she consent to the relocation. Starting in September 2021, she saw the child one time per month other than in December 2021 and May 2022 when she did not see the Child at all. When asked why he was not producing the Child, the Father told the Mother that either he had car trouble, or did not provide any explanation at all. The Mother testified about her past court involvement, and about steps that she took since that time. The Mother testified that in 2015, she had a child protective case brought against her. She stated that since that case concluded, she has moved into a house, and is now a social worker. She testified that in 2015, she was in treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and that since then, she has completed her mental health treatment and now has healthy coping skills. She is now employed at City Block where she advocates and coordinates patient care and is responsible for assessments, referrals, home visits, coordinating hospitalizations and services, and advocacy. She obtained an associate degree at LaGuardia College and is currently enrolled at Walden University where she is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in health science. The Mother testified that her mental health treatment has had a positive impact on her parenting and her education has helped her to understand health, including mental health, and has helped her parenting. She currently resides in a five-bedroom home in New Jersey; the Child has a shared room with his brother. The Mother stated that she has seven children and that when the Child is with her, the siblings play together and the Child sees his maternal great grandmother, his maternal aunt and his cousins. Prior to his relocation to Virginia, the Child visited them every other weekend but now only visits one time every three months The Mother testified that the Father has not provided her with the name of the Child’s school nor advised about parent-teacher conferences, provided report cards or information. He has not consulted the Mother about the Child’s medical care, religious upbringing and/or schooling even though the Mother requested this information. Per the Mother, the Father did not add her to the Child’s school contact sheet. On August 26, 2022, on cross-examination by the Attorney for the Child, the Mother testified that beginning in February 2021, the Father began denying her visits for various reasons but that prior to then, and other than during COVID-19, the visits took place every other weekend. She testified that she learned about the Father’s relocation from her Child, she doesn’t have the Father’s address, and doesn’t know the names of the Child’s teachers. On September 19, 2022, on continued cross examination by the Attorney for the Child, the Mother testified that she had been made aware of the Child’s school and had been added to the school contact sheet, but that she still did not know the name of the Child’s doctor. On cross examination by counsel for the Father, the Mother testified that she had been contacted in December 2021 by the Child’s New York State school district and informed that the Child had been discharged. She received an email from the Child’s new school with the school rules and information that he had been enrolled. According to the Mother, since that time, she did not contact the school or request information. On the next hearing date of November 29, 2022, the Mother testified on cross examination that in November 2016, she lived in Florida and was not having regular visits with the child. She further testified that when in Florida, she had visits with the Child approximately one-time per month and that she did not visit with the Child from March to May 2020 by agreement because of COVID-19. She acknowledged that between May 2020 to February 2021, she sometimes missed visits due to family situations with her mother and/or sister which required her to travel to another state, and due to medical issues relating to an older child. The Mother testified that when she relocated to New Jersey, she did not seek the Father’s permission to relocate and that she currently resides in a five bedroom home with the Child’s siblings and her partner. The Mother admitted that in November 2022, she initiated a conversation with the Child about where he wants to live. She indicated that she thinks the conversation was appropriate even though she is aware that the Child has an attorney, and she knows that she is in the middle of a custody trial. On continued cross-examination, the Mother testified that she watches movies and plays games with the Child during her parenting time and does not do homework with the child, as she inquired of his teacher and of the Child and was told that he does not have weekend homework. She does look at the Child’s grades online, she is in contact with his teacher, and checks on his tests and assignments by speaking to the Child and by checking the school portal. The Mother testified that in May 2021, she contacted the police about the Father because he denied her visitation and because she wanted them to conduct a wellness check as she hadn’t seen the Child in some time and had attempted to reach the Child for several days. She testified further that she had asked the Father about the Child’s school, doctor and dentist and that the Father was not cooperative in providing her with this information. On the Mother’s direct case, the Court admitted several text exchanges between the parties. Of note, between October 2021 and September 2022, the Mother inquired about visits with the Child on October 7, 2021, October 20, 2021, October 22, 2021, October 29, 2021, November 3, 2021, November 17, 2021, January 11, 2022, January 12, 2022, February 2, 2022, February 4, 2022, March 10, 2022, March 17, 2022, March 18, 2022, March 24, 2022, April 1, 2022, April 7, 2022, April 8, 2022, April 9, 2022, April 10, 2022, April 11, 2022, April 12, 2022, April 13, 2022, April 28, 2022, May 6, 2022, May 19, 2022, May 20, 2022, May 27, 2022, June 2, 2022, June 10, 2022, June 16, 2022, June 23, 2022, August 30, 2022, August 31, 2022, September 8, 2022, and September 9, 2022. In response to the Mother’s requests, the Father claimed that he was unable to produce the Child due to illness or injury on October 7, 2021, October 20, 2021, November 3, 2021, November 17, 2021 and June 10, 2022. He claimed that he was unable to produce the Child due to car trouble, bad weather and/or work obligations on October 22, 2021, October 29, 2022, January 11, 2022, April 11, 2022 and September 30, 2022. Moreover, the Father stated that he would not produce the Child without offering any explanation for his failure to do so on November 3, 2021, March 10, 2022, March 27, 2022, April 1, 2022, April 4, 2022, April 22, 2022, April 30, 2022, May 6, 2022, May 14, 2022, May 20, 2022, June 3, 2022, June 17, 2022 and August 31, 2022. The trial in this case was scheduled to continue on June 14, 2023. Of note, on June 13, 2023, the Court and counsel received the following email from counsel for the Father: “This case is on for continued trial tomorrow at 9 AM. My client just reached out to me to let me know that the subject child is graduating from school tomorrow morning, and asked that I request an adjournment on his behalf so he can appear at the graduation. I’m attaching the proof that my client provided to me. Thank you for the consideration.” Notwithstanding that the trial was scheduled for in-person appearances and the late notice provided by the Father to his attorney, the Court did allow the Father to appear virtually. The Mother rested on her direct case and the Father finally appeared in Court virtually (and from his car) at 10:00 a.m. at which point, he was permitted to offer testimony on his own behalf. On direct examination, the Father testified that he currently lives in Virginia with his fiancé and two children. The Child has resided with the Father since 2015 when the Child came to live with the Father after being placed in foster care. The Court took judicial notice of the order of fact finding and disposition on docket N42028/13 and of the final order of custody and visitation on docket V42967/13. The Father testified that as of November 30, 2015 the Mother was supposed to have parenting time with the child from Friday to Monday each week. Between November 2015 to January 2017, the Mother missed at most one month’s worth of visits and that there was communication between the parties. In or around January 2017, the Mother moved to Florida without communicating such and missed a “full year” of visits. The Father said that he had explained the situation to the Child and told him that Mother was doing what was best for her at the time. There was one visit during that period of time and limited phone contact between the Child and the Mother, however, the Child was regularly in contact with his siblings. The Father testified that the Mother returned to New York in 2019 shortly before the pandemic and that she communicated this to the Father and requested that the earlier visitation schedule resume. At this time, the Father was residing in Westchester and the Child was in school. The Father enrolled him in school and added the Mother to the Child’s Blue Card. During the 2019-2020 school year, the Father attended all Parent-Teacher conferences and the Mother did not attend any. The Father kept the Child with the primary care doctor that the Mother had chosen. The Father testified that he relocated to Westchester in 2020 due to issues with his landlord and because he wanted a backyard. The child remained in the same school through the end of the year. At the time, the Father told the Mother than he was exploring relocating to Virginia and he explained that he made the decision to relocate because the Mother moved to Florida and had then moved to New Jersey at the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021. He further testified that there had been “at least a year” between the Mother’s relocation to New Jersey and the Father’s relocation to Virginia and that during that period of time, Mother was picking up and dropping off the Child for the Friday to Monday scheduled visits. The Father testified that he ultimately relocated at the end of 2021 because he decided that it was best for his family and that he had made efforts to find a closer location to the Mother but did not like the school districts. He is now a five-hour driving distance away from the Mother as opposed to the two-hour driving distance when he resided in Yonkers. He further testified that he was employed at a restaurant in Yonkers and making $22 per hour for twenty hours per week, and that he had a job offer in Virginia in construction for $20 per hour, where there is a lower cost of living. The Father testified that he had told the Mother than he was relocating and the Mother did not agree because of the distance but the Father responded that the Mother had moved outside of New York twice so he was entitled to move. He stated that he made the decision based on what was best for himself and his family and there was an access order in place and the Father intended to continue to produce the Child. At the conclusion of the testimony on June 14, 2023, the Court ordered that the Mother have parenting time with the Child from July 5, 2023 until August 20, 2023, and continued the trial to October 25, 2023. A compliance conference was scheduled for July 25, 2023 and an in camera examination with the Child scheduled for August 9, 2023. On July 12, 2023, the Mother reported that the Father failed to produce the Child for her parenting time on July 5, 2023 in violation of a Court order. She demanded sanctions and an immediate return of the Child to her. On that date, the Father testified that he, in fact, produced the Child on July 8, 2023 notwithstanding the clear directive of the Court that he produce the Child on the 5th of July. In response, this Court, in an order issued on July 25, 2023, concluded that the Father intentionally violated its order of June 14th, 2023. The undersigned referred the matter to the Honorable Keith Brown for certification of the July 25, 2023 findings of fact. On November 27, 2023, Judge Brown heard this matter and entered the following decision and order: “The decision and order of Court Attorney Referee Pamela Scheininger dated July 25, 2023 is confirmed. Zacharia P[.] is ordered to pay a monetary fine of $750.00 (Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars) within the next 30 days to the New York State Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection. Counsel for the respondent Zacharia P[.] shall submit proof of payment.” An in camera examination of the Child was held on August 9, 2023 and the trial resumed on October 25, 2023. On October 25, 2023, the Father continued his direct testimony. He stated that he had initially believed that he would be able to follow the visitation order but now, his vehicles are not in good condition. The Father initially said that when he first re-located, he was complying with the visitation schedule but then said that when he moved, there were issues, his job did not work out, he was living in a hotel and was supposed to buy a house but that did not work out. He then claimed that from one to two months after he relocated, he was on his way to take the Child to the Mother and his car broke down. The Father testified that after his move to Virginia, he produced the Child for the Mother every other weekend between September 2021 to December 2021. He said that he notified the Mother when his car broke down in December 2021 and that he borrowed a car and brought the Child to the Mother in December 2021 or January 2022. He acknowledged that he had limited communication with Mother when he missed visits. The Father claimed that during the summer of 2022, he made up for any missed visits and that since the summer 2022, he has produced the Child for all vacations and/or holidays. He acknowledged that he had been three days late for the Mother’s summer parenting time in 2023 and stated that the Mother always had the option to pick the Child up. The Father testified that he encourages a parent-child relationship and does not make disparaging remarks about the Mother and stated that he does not believe that missed visits impact the Child’s relationship with the Mother. On cross examination by counsel for the Mother, the Father acknowledged that there was a final order of custody entered on consent on November 30, 2012 which provided for joint legal custody and parenting time between the Child and the Mother every weekend, and which has not been modified by any subsequent final order of custody. He further testified that from the time that he relocated to Virginia until the time that the Mother filed a petition for enforcement on November 1, 2021, he does not remember how many times the Child visited the Mother but acknowledged that there were missed visits. The Father testified that he has never filed a petition seeking to modify the final order of custody and that he notified the Mother that he was moving to Virginia but did not believe that he needed the Mother’s permission to move to Virginia because this is a contract and once the Mother “violated” it by moving to Florida, the contract was “void.” The Father testified on cross examination that when the Mother moved to New Jersey, the visitation schedule went back to that contained in the 2015 consent order and that the order had only somewhat been followed since he moved to Virginia. The Father stated that he chose to relocate due to “safety concerns” — he was not happy to be living in New York at the time and had general concerns about safety in New York. He claimed that he could not find a closer place to live and that school choice was a consideration when he moved to Virginia. He acknowledged that there is no communication between the parties and stated that he wants flexibility in future orders. In response to questions by counsel about missed visits, the Father testified that there was one visit between September 2021 to November 2021, and that there were “some missed visits” during that time frame. As to 2022, he stated that he does not remember exact dates and that he was not following the order as consistently as he could have been. On recall, the Father testified that it is “possible” that the Mother missed more than five visits prior to the summer of 2022 and that she missed a number of visits after the summer of 2022. Although the Father claimed that he missed visits due to car trouble, he acknowledged that he had not presented any evidence of such nor did he have any evidence available. He also acknowledged that his testimony about financial hardship was not supported by any evidence. The Father further stated that, for the court ordered 2022 Christmas visit, he did not bring the Child on the date ordered by Court but was two to three days late and that for the summer 2023 visit, he also brought the Child three days late. He testified that he believes that he should follow court orders but that if he is “doing his best,” his failure to follow such orders should not have consequences. He further stated that he has offered “make-up” time when he could arrange it, and that going forward, the Child will be produced for the Mother every weekend as he has secured a car. On cross examination by the Attorney for the Child, the Father denied having told the Child that the parties had agreed to the relocation, and acknowledged that he failed to share his address in Virginia. He admitted that he did not tell the Mother about the Child’s graduation in June 2023 and did not notify the Mother about the name of the Child’s new school. He claimed that going forward, his plan is to leave Virginia at 10:00 pm and drive with the Child through the night to produce the Child for visits. At the conclusion of the trial, counsel stipulated that the Father’s relocation to Virginia constituted a significant change in circumstances. At closing arguments, the Attorney for the Child supported a determination that the Father has engaged in parental interference and stated on behalf of his client that the Child would be happy living in New Jersey or Virginia. DISCUSSION Having found a significant change in circumstances since the entry of the order of custody and visitation on November 30, 2015, the Court must determine whether it is in the Child’s best interests to modify that order and award primary physical custody of the Child to the Mother. In considering this matter, the Court turns to the highest court of the state. Specifically, the Court of Appeals has clearly stated that: “The only absolute in the law governing custody of children is that there are no absolutes. The Legislature has so declared in directing that custody be determined by the circumstances of the case and of the parties and the best interests of the child, but then adding “In all cases there shall be no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent” (Domestic Relations Law, §240; see, also, §70). Because the section speaks to modification as well as to an original matrimonial judgment, “all cases” must be read as including both. That, of course, does not mean that custody may be changed without regard to the circumstances considered by the court when the earlier award was made but rather that no one factor, including the existence of the earlier decree or agreement, is determinative of whether there should, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, be a change in custody.” See Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 (1982). Moreover, in Esbach v. Esbach, the Court of Appeals held that: “Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine “what is for the best interest of the child, and what will best promote its welfare and happiness”. (Domestic Relations Law, §70; Matter of Ebert v. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700, 702; Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 769; Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270; Bistany v. Bistany, 66 AD2d 1026; Sandman v. Sandman, 64 AD2d 698, mot for lv to app den 46 N.Y.2d 705; Matter of Saunders v. Saunders, 60 AD2d 701.) As we have recently stated, there are no absolutes in making these determinations; rather, there are policies designed not to bind the courts, but to guide them in determining what is in the best interests of the child. (Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-95.).” See Esbach v. Esbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 (1982). In that the instant case involves a proposed modification of an existing consent order, the Court also considers the guidance provided by the Court of Appeals in Esbach. Specifically: “Where the parties have entered into an agreement as to which parent should have custody, we have stated that “[p]riority, not as an absolute but as a weighty factor, should, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, be accorded” to that agreement. (Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, 43 N.Y.2d 242, 251.) This priority is afforded the first determination of custody in the belief the stability this policy will assure in the child’s life is in the child’s best interests. (Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, supra, at p 94; Corradino v. Corradino, 48 N.Y.2d 894; Matter of Nehra v. Uhlar, supra; Obey v. Degling, supra; Dintruff v. McGreevy, 34 N.Y.2d 887; Aberbach v. Aberbach, 33 N.Y.2d 592; People ex rel. Selbert v. Selbert, 60 AD2d 692.) But as this court noted in Friederwitzer, “[n]o agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which a weighing of all the factors involved shows to be in the child’s best interests (People ex rel. Wasserberger v. Wasserberger, 42 AD2d 93, 95, affd on opn below 34 N.Y.2d 660).” (Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, supra, at p 95.) Thus, an agreement between the parties is but one factor to be weighed by the court in deciding whether a change of custody is warranted.” See Esbach at 172. In this case, the Court is satisfied that each parent can provide a safe and suitable home for the Child. Notwithstanding the neglect finding as to the Mother, the Court does not have any safety concerns as to the Child in her care. In each home, the Child has siblings with whom he shares a positive and loving relationship and the Court has no concerns about either parent’s romantic partners. The Court had the opportunity to speak to the Child in camera and finds that the Child’s wishes would not impact a determination of this matter — he loves both of his parents and shares a close and loving bond with them. He is happy in both of his homes and seems to be, somewhat miraculously, to be unaware of the extent of the strife between his parents. The primary considerations in this case are the Father’s decision to relocate from New York to Virginia over the objection of the Mother and the Mother’s allegations of parental interference on the part of the Father. In considering whether a parent may relocate with a child over the objection of the other parent, the Court of Appeals has stated: “Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child (cf. Henszey, Visitation by a Non-Custodial Parent: What is the “Best Interest” Doctrine?, 15 Journal of Family Law 213, 214-215). This view does not lose sight of the fact that, while legal custody may be in one or both of the parents, the fact that it is placed in one does not necessarily terminate the role of the other as a psychological guardian and preceptor (see Gardner, Psychotherapy with Children of Divorce, p 381). See Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 (1981). Moreover, in the seminal relocation case, Tropea v. Tropea, the Court of Appeals held: “In reality, cases in which a custodial parent’s desire to relocate conflicts with the desire of a noncustodial parent to maximize visitation opportunity are simply too complex to be satisfactorily handled within any mechanical, tiered analysis that prevents or interferes with a simultaneous weighing and comparative analysis of all of the relevant facts and circumstances. Although we have recognized and continue to appreciate both the need of the child and the right of the noncustodial parent to have regular and meaningful contact (see generally, Weiss v. Weiss, supra), we also believe that no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome.” See Tropea v. Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 728 (1996). While the respective rights of the custodial and noncustodial parents are unquestionably significant factors that must be considered (see, Strahl v. Strahl, 66 AD2d 571, affd 49 NY2d 1036, supra), it is the rights and needs of the children that must be accorded the greatest weight, since they are innocent victims of their parents’ decision to divorce and are the least equipped to handle the stresses of the changing family situation.” Id. at 739. The Court further stated that: “In addition to the custodial parent’s stated reasons for wanting to move and the noncustodial parent’s loss of access, another factor that may well become important in a particular case is the noncustodial parent’s interest in securing custody, as well as the feasibility and desirability of a change in custody.” Id. at 739. “Other considerations that may have a bearing in particular cases are the good faith of the parents in requesting or opposing the move, the child’s respective attachments to the custodial and noncustodial parent, the possibility of devising a visitation schedule that will enable the noncustodial parent to maintain a meaningful parent-child relationship, the quality of the life-style that the child would have if the proposed move were permitted or denied, the negative impact, if any, from continued or exacerbated hostility between the custodial and noncustodial parents, and the effect that the move may have on any extended family relationships.” Id. At 740. In the instant case, the Father has failed to provide an adequate justification for his decision to relocate the child almost 400 miles away from his home in New York. To the contrary, the Father was only able to state that he had issues with his landlord, that he wanted a back yard and had “general safety concerns” with New York as his reason for relocation. He claimed that he had explored closer places to move the Child, however he was unable to provide any specific details as to this. Moreover, although he testified about employment and housing opportunities in Virginia, the job that he hoped to take in Virginia paid less per hour than his job in New York, and he ultimately admitted that he had neither a job nor permanent housing available upon relocation. It is undisputed that the Father failed to make an effort to have a meaningful discussion with the Mother about his relocation nor obtain the Mother’s consent to his relocation. To the contrary, he stated more than once that he did not believe that he had to consult with the Mother as to the relocation because the Mother had moved to Florida for a period of time without his consent. It is also undisputed that this relocation has had an immediate and material negative impact on the visitation schedule between the Mother and the Child and between the Child and his siblings. The Father himself acknowledged multiple missed visits and although he offered explanations for some of those missed visits, the explanations are irrelevant. The Child was relocated five hours away from the Mother and his siblings and the Father has failed to ensure that the visitation schedule has been followed in any meaningful move. Moreover, the distance between the Mother and the Father has required the Child to travel throughout the night on those occasions that he was produced for visits, which calls the quality of such visits into question for an undoubtedly exhausted child. As to the other factors identified in Tropea, the Father offered only generalized testimony as to any benefits afforded to the Child’s life-style through the relocation. Moreover, the relocation clearly has had a negative effect on the Child’s access to his siblings who are residing with his Mother. As to the Mother’s allegations of parental interference, the First Department has stated clearly that “A custodial parent’s conduct may warrant a change of custody if it reaches “the level of deliberately frustrating, denying or interfering with” the parental rights of the noncustodial parent so as to raise doubts about the custodial parent’s fitness (see Matter of Lawrence C. v. Anthea P., 79 AD3d 577, 579 [1st Dept 2010]).” See Melissa C.D. v. Rene I.D., 117 A.D.3d 407 (1st Dep’t 2014). Moreover, “[Parental access] is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child” (Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 [1981]; see Matter of Nixon v. Ferrone, 153 AD3d 625, 627 [2017]; Matter of Sanders v. Jaco, 148 AD3d 812, 814 [2017]). Inasmuch as “[t]he best interests of the child generally lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents” (Matter of Ross v. Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 [2012]; see Matter of Zwillman v. Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Jules v. Corriette, 76 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2010]), “[i]t is generally in the best interest of the child for a rapport to be established with the noncustodial parent” (Matter of Schack v. Schack, 98 AD2d 802, 802 [1983]; see Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753, 755 [2006]). “In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with [the] child, [parental access] must be frequent and regular” (Grunwald v. Grunwald, 108 AD3d at 539 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Twersky v. Twersky, 103 AD2d 775, 775-776 [1984]). Accordingly, “[o]ne of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the child[ ] and the other parent” (Matter of Raybin v. Raybin, 205 AD2d 918, 921 [1994]; see Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122 [1995]), and some form of [parental access] by the noncustodial parent is generally appropriate, “absent exceptional circumstances, such as those in which it would be inimical to the welfare of the child or where a parent in some manner has forfeited his or her right to such access” (Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d at 175; see Matter of Gonzalez v. Ross, 140 AD3d 869, 871 [2016]; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d at 755; Klutchko v. Baron, 1 AD3d 400, 405 [2003]; Matter of Eric L. v. Dorothy L., 130 AD2d 660, 660-661 [1987]; Janousek v. Janousek, 108 AD2d 782, 784 [1985]; Parker v. Ford, 89 AD2d 806, 806-807 [1982]).” See Matter of Brown v. Simon, 195 A.D.3d 806, In fact, “a custodial parent’s willful deprivation of the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights constitutes “an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [parent] is unfit to act as a custodial parent,” quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle (61 AD2d 380, 384-385 [1978], appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851 [1978]).” See John A. v. Bridget M., 16 A.D.3d 324, 330 (2005). In the instant case, it is abundantly clear that since relocating to Virginia, the Father has engaged in consistent interference with the Mother’s relationship with the Child. In fact, the text messages between the Father and the Mother which were admitted in evidence on the Mother’s direct case reflect that between October 2021 and September 2022, the Mother requested access to the Child at on least 35 occasions. In response to the Mother’s requests, the Father claimed that he was unable to produce the Child due to illness or injury on October 7, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 4, 2021, November 18, 2021 and June 11, 2022. He claimed that he was unable to produce the Child due to car trouble, bad weather and/or work obligations on October 22, 2021, October 30, 2022, December 17, 2022, January 13, 2022, April 11, 2022 and September 30, 2022. Moreover, the Father stated that he would not produce the Child without offering any explanation for his failure to do so on November 4, 2021, March 10, 2022, March 27, 2022, April 1, 2022, April 4, 2022, April 22, 2022, April 30, 2022, May 6, 2022, May 14, 2022, May 20, 2022, June 3, 2022, June 17, 2022 and August 31, 2022. The Court is in the unique position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and in this case, the Court found the Father’s testimony as to why he failed to produce the Child for the Mother to be incredible, conclusory, and self-serving. The Father failed to provide any details as to the nature of his car trouble and/or employment obligations and his testimony as to the frequency of contact between the Child and the Mother was inconsistent with the documentary evidence. Conversely, the Court found the Mother’s testimony about the Father’s interference with her access to the Child to be credible and supported by the documentary evidence in this case. Of particular concern in consideration of whether there should be a transfer of custody of the Child is the Father’s complete disregard of the Court’s order of custody and visitation. The Father demonstrated a complete lack of concern as to whether his unilateral relocation of the Child would result in his violation of existing court orders as to parenting time between the Child and the Mother. Moreover, following his move to Virginia, he consistently ignored the Mother’s access order without, at any point, filing a petition to modify such order. So great was the Father’s disregard for the Court, that he was found to be in contempt of the Court and fined $750 on November 27, 2023, by the Honorable Keith Brown. CONCLUSION Based on the above, the Court makes the following determinations: (1) the Father failed to meet his burden in proving that the relocation of the Child was justified and in the Child’s best interests; and (2) the Father has engaged in a pattern of parental interference since his relocation to Georgia. The Court further finds that, given the Father’s disregard of clear and unequivocal court orders throughout the pendency of this case, there is every reason to believe that he will continue to violate court orders in the future. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is in the Child’s best interest to transfer primary physical custody to the Mother to take effect after he finishes his school year in Virginia. This matter is adjourned to April 1, 2024 from 2:00 — 3:00 p.m. for an in-person appearance in order to conference the case as to an access / visitation schedule between the Father and the Child. PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. Dated: February 9, 2024
