B.J.R. v. P.E.D.

ADDITIONAL CASES P.E.D., Petitioner v. B.J.R. Respondent, DECISION AFTER TRIAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties, B.J.R. (hereinafter “Father”) and P.E.D. (hereinafter “Mother”), are parents of the subject children, Brian born on X, 2017 (hereinafter “Brian”) and Eva born on X, 2018 (hereinafter “Eva”). The parties entered into a Custody and Parenting Time Stipulation in Queens County Family Court which was so-ordered by the court on May 21, 2020 wherein they agreed to, inter alia, joint legal custody of the children with residential custody to the Mother (hereinafter the “2020 Order”). Pursuant to the 2020 Order, the parties were to cooperate to establish a mutually agreeable policy regarding any “routine decisions” with the parent who had the children at any given time making such decisions. With respect to “major decisions” the parties were directed to discuss same in depth and such decisions required the mutual agreement of both parties with an exception for a medical emergency. The parties were to communicate via email or Our Family Wizard. Both parties had the right to speak directly with and to attend any appointment or meeting with any treating medical professional or school personnel involving the children, and each was to be listed as emergency contacts and be granted access to any applicable portals, mailings, etc. Both parties were permitted to attend all organized and/or special events for the children. Each party was to be entitled to one daily phone call, or two daily phone calls if the parent has no direct contact with the children that day, by any applicable technology at a consistent time each day as mutually convenient for the parties’ and the children. Per the 2020 Order, the Mother had residential custody of the children with the Father having parenting time on alternating weekends from 10:00 a.mm on Saturday through Monday morning drop-off at school or 8 a.m. at an agreed upon location if there was no school, and every Tuesday and Wednesday from after school through drop off at school on Thursday morning or by 8 a.m. at an agreed upon location if there was no school. The Father was entitled to spend any time the children would otherwise be in childcare with the children as his work schedule permitted and either parent was to immediately notify the other if either child was to be taken out of school or childcare. The parties had a full schedule of holiday and summer parenting time, and any additional or other parenting time as agreed in writing via email or Our Family Wizard. On April 22, 2022, the Mother filed a Family Offense Petition (Docket No. O-02894-22). No temporary orders of protection were issued thereunder. The petition was then amended. The parties appeared in court on May 3, 2022, the Father being represented by Barbara Gervase, Esq., and the Mother having waived counsel. The Family Offense petition was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On June 6, 2022 the Mother filed a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking supervised visitation for the Father pending an investigation regarding alleged bruises to Brian’s legs (Docket No. V-05644-20/22B, V-05645-20/22B, the “22B Petition”). The Court directed the Nassau County Department of Social Services (hereinafter, “DSS”) to conduct an investigation and submit a report to the Court pursuant to FCA §1034. On June 21, 2022, the Mother filed a Family Offense Petition (Docket No. O-04403-22). A Temporary Order of Protection was issued against the Father requiring him to refrain from any crime or family offense against the Mother, to refrain from any hazardous acts against the children, and to refrain from making disparaging remarks about the Mother in front of the children. On July 5, 2022, the Father filed a Family Offense Petition (Docket No. O-04796-22). A Temporary Order of Protection was issued against the Mother requiring her to refrain from any crime or family offense against the Mother, to refrain from corporal punishment as it related to the children, and to refrain from making disparaging remarks about the Father in front of the children. Also on July 5, 2022, the Mother filed both a Petition alleging Violation of an Order of Protection (Docket No. O-04403-22/22A) and a Petition seeking Modification of an Order of Protection (Docket No. O-04403-22/22B) and was issued a new Temporary Order of Protection against the Father with the same terms as the June 21, 2022 order, but with additional language requiring him to refrain from corporal punishment as it related to the children. On July 7, 2022 the Father filed a Petition for Enforcement of an Order of Custody/Visitation by Order to Show Cause (Docket No. V-05644-20/22C, V-05645-20/22C, the “22C Petition”). On July 13, 2022 the Mother filed a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking supervised visitation for the Father and alleging that the Father had punched Brian in the throat (Docket No. V-05644-20/22D, V-05645-20/22D, the “22D Petition”). On July 14, 2022 the parties appeared in court, with the Mother represented by Christina Nankervis, Esq., and a Temporary Order of Parenting Time was issued directing supervised visitation for the Father both at Kids in Common, and supervised by the paternal grandmother P.R.. The court ordered that a forensic evaluation be conducted by Dr. Peter Favaro. The parties again appeared in court on July 20, 2022, however the court order investigation remained under investigation. On September 2, 2022 the Father filed a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking sole custody of the children based on, inter alia, what he alleges were false allegations being made by the Mother and her encouraging of the children to lie (Docket No. V-05644-20/22E, V-05645-20/22E, the “22E Petition”). By Order dated September 21, 2022, this court directed that both parties be enjoined from the further filing of any petitions, motions, or supplemental petitions unless by order to show cause (see, Shreve v. Shreve, 229 A.D.2d 105, [4th Dept 1996]). On that same date, the temporary order directing that the Father’s parenting time be supervised by the paternal grandmother was vacated such that he was to resume his regular parenting time along with continuing visits through Kids in Common. The CPS investigation remained open. The parties appeared in court again on November 9, 2022. On that date the CPS report was finalized and was indicated and open as against both parents. On January 5, 2023 DSS filed neglect petitions as against both parents (Docket No. NN-189-23, NN-190-23). That matter resolved on February 21, 2023 when the parties consented to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (“ACOD”) for six months with an order of supervision, and the matter was ultimately dismissed upon completion of the six-month period. On June 12, 2023 the Mother filed Family Offense Petitions as against the Father and his wife C.R. (Docket Nos. O-04398-23, O-4399-23, respectively). The petition filed against the Father’s wife was dismissed immediately, and a Temporary Order of Protection was issued as against the Father directing him to refrain from any crime or family offense against the Mother and the children. On July 17, 2023 the parties appeared in court and the Mother’s June 12, 2023 Family Offense petition against the Father was dismissed and the order of protection was vacated. Dr. Favaro submitted his report to the court and the Mother was directed to submit financial documentation in support of her request for 18B counsel. Christina Nankervis, Esq. was relieved and Robert Mangi, Esq. was appointed 18B counsel for the Mother on August 17, 2023. On October 18, 2023 the parties appeared in court for a pre-trial conference. Both pending Family Offense petitions (Mother’s O-04403-22, O-04403-22/22A, O-4403-22/22B, and Father’s O-04796-22) were withdrawn without prejudice. Additionally, the Mother’s “22B” and Father’s “22C” petitions were withdrawn. Trial dates were set with respect to the remaining petitions, to wit, the Mother’s “22D” and Father’s “22E” petitions. The Mother later withdrew her 22D petition on November 13, 2023. The trial was held on November 2, 2023, November 13, 2023, November 16, 2023, December 5, 2023, December 7, 2023, January 5, 2024, January 17, 2024, February 5, 2024, February 8, 2024, February 26, 2024, March 25, 2024, March 26, 2024, March 29, 2024, May 9, 2024, and concluded on May 20, 2024. Though not the subject of this trial, the court is cognizant of the continued proceedings that followed the conclusion of the trial. Specifically, it is not disputed that beginning May 23, 2024 the Mother withheld the children for the Father’s scheduled parenting time. On May 29, 2024 the Father filed a Petition for Enforcement/Violation of an Order of Custody/Visitation by Order to Show Cause (Docket No. V-05644-20/24F, V-05645-20/24F, the “24F Petition”) alleging the aforementioned violation and seeking makeup parenting time. On May 31, 2024 the Mother filed an Order to Show Cause calendared as Motion Sequence 1 on the Father’s 24F Petition wherein she seeks an emergency modification of custody granting her sole custody based on new allegations of sexual abuse against the Father. The parties appeared in court on June 5, 2024. The Mother was directed to submit her tax returns for a de novo determination regarding her eligibility for the assignment of counsel and she was directed to release the children, who had not attended school since May 23, 2024 (7 days missed), to the Father for his regular parenting time plus an additional night of makeup time. The Court directed DSS to conduct an investigation and submit a report to the Court pursuant to FCA §1034. The Father filed a Writ of Habeus Corpus on June 6, 2024 along with a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking sole custody of the children based on, inter alia, what he alleges were false allegations being made by the Mother and her encouraging of the children to lie (Docket No. V-05644-20/24G, V-05645-20/24G, the “24G Petition”). The parties appeared in court on June 10, 2024 and the Mother was assigned a new 18B attorney, Jason Isaacson, Esq. DSS submitted an interim report wherein it was revealed, inter alia, that both children were taken to the Child Advocacy Center for forensic interviews and both disclosed that the Mother had instructed them to lie about the new allegations against the Father. By report dated July 8, 2024, CPS marked the allegations unfounded and closed the case. The parties and counsel appeared again in court on June 11, 2024 and the Father, by counsel, made an application for an immediate change of custody which was denied. The next appearance is scheduled for July 15, 2024. FINDINGS OF FACT Testimony of Dr. Peter Favaro The first witness to testify was Dr. Peter Favaro. Dr. Favaro stated that he is the court’s “custody expert” and that he was assigned by the court to evaluate the parties and to provide opinions on this matter relevant to the best interests of the children. He stated that this would include physical custody of the children, parenting time, domestic violence, and interference with parental rights. He testified that he met with the parties and the children more than once and conducted an evaluation using multiple forms of data gathering and ultimately reduced his thoughts to a written report. Dr. Favaro’s copy of the report was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. Dr. Favaro stated that in making his report, “self-reporting,” which means things that people say about themselves and others, is a large part of the data gathering that he does because everything that an expert does relies on the parties’ reporting. He testified that in connection with the self-reporting, each party gave their version and their interpretation of the facts and events that occurred and with their interaction with the other party and that, in this case, it would be very fair to say that the parties were highly critical of each other and of the other’s parenting skills. When asked whether either party made a positive comment about the other party’s parenting skills, he said there are a number of questionnaires that he gives that elicit positive or negative comments about the other parent and that on some of these questionnaires the parties “pay lip service” to the notion that their children need both a mother and a father. He testified that if he stretches his imagination to as far as it can go, he can say that both parties did that but by and large, they were very negative about the personal attributes of the other. When asked how he would describe the social functioning of the children, he said that the subject children are “super stars,” that they are gorgeous, funny, amazing, intellectually above average and that they are extraordinarily expressive, especially Eva. He stated that he has done this for a long time, and he has seen thousands of kids, and that these children he will remember. Dr. Favaro stated that their emotional development is currently being hampered by their parents, that they have loyalty issues, that they were both influenced by both parents and that that is harmful to them emotionally. He states that they do not have a consistent concept of the truth in that they say they are telling the truth and then the next time they come in to see him, what they told him the last time was actually not the truth, and what they are telling him now is definitely the truth. Dr. Favaro testified that he saw the children four times because of the children’s inconsistencies. He agreed that this is an unusual amount of time and that he does not like to keep kids involved in these evaluations, because they remember it and they talk about it and it affects them deeply emotionally to have to go in front of this “very important stranger” to talk about the most personal things that occur in their lives. However in this case, he testified that he saw fit to see them four times because they were so inconsistent, and the allegations were so severe, specifically that there’s an allegation that one of the parents did something that could have ended up in the death of the child, so he had to make sure he did his due diligence, which he testified included making a report to Child Protective Services. Dr. Favaro testified that he engaged with the children’s pediatrician, Glendale Pediatrics but could not remember if it was the same pediatrician for both children. With respect to the information provided by the pediatrician, Dr. Favaro stated that he likes to know that children are being brought in for well care, their medical needs are being promoted and looked after by the parents and that in this case he learned that the children’s medical needs were being met. Dr. Favaro was asked as part of his evaluation whether he reached out to any therapists and he stated that he spoke to the children’s therapists, to Kids in Common, and to the Mother’s “prescribing” Dr. Kvetny who reported that the Mother was compliant with her medications, and no concerns were expressed about her physical health. Dr. Favaro stated that he had reached out to several other providers for both parents but received no responses. It was Dr. Favaro’s understanding that the therapy that the Father engaged in was in the past but that the Father stated that he saw those counselors for adjustment issues and he received no response from any providers. Dr. Favaro testified that he did an MMPI which is a gross measure of mental health but he testified that he could not tell if the MMPI in this case indicated that anyone was suffering from a severe mental illness because both parties invalidated the test by using a response style that was extremely defensive and overly virtuous which is not so unusual in custody evaluations. Dr. Favaro noted that there is a caveat contained in his reports which says that there is only one person who can determine credibility and that is the ultimate trier of fact. He states that the research tends to indicate that mental health professionals are particularly poor at telling the difference between the truth and a lie which is because they are never taught this in school. He stated that the people who are trained to tell the difference between the truth and a lie are special agents and FBI people and people who interrogate other people for a living and judges. He testified that we deal with different types of issues of credibility and here we deal with “my co-parent is a bad person,” so it is incredibly difficult. He stated that judges have a “leg up” on evaluators because they get to see more evidence and they get to hear more testimony and they get to see people who are under the stress and strain of competent cross-examination. Dr. Favaro stated that the truth of what a psychotherapy client reports is not always of the utmost importance because you are going to come in and say your narrative, and they are not going to investigate that so they don’t know if it’s true or not, and the provider is more interested with the quality of your emotion and are also going to assess you over a much longer period of time. He testified that what comes out between a patient and therapist will be quite different than when someone is talking to him as they are careful about what they say and they don’t want him to think that there is anything wrong with them as they are in a competitive stance with their co-parent. Dr. Favaro stated that he evaluated the children and made judgments about their well-being, and that he was able to uncover strengths in each of the parents. He said that they are both incredibly devoted to their children, they both place their children’s needs at a very high level in what they want to do in life, and that they each love their children and want to take care of them. Dr. Favaro testified that here, both parents hate each other so much that they are willing to see mental illness, malicious intent, and just negativity in one another and that when you do that it then becomes difficult to see why that child is needed by the other parent. Dr. Favaro testified that while the parents here want to do things that are in the best interests of their children, they are thwarted by their hatred for one another. He testified that having high conflict co-parents impacts the children in that it can interfere with the children’s establishment of healthy relationships in their future lives, it can cause more academic failure, more criminal behavior, higher incidences of drug and alcohol abuse in children that are from high conflict families, and mental illness in general. He did not render a diagnosis for either party and noted that the APA cautions against diagnosing parties in legal settings. Dr. Favaro stated that, with respect to the problems they have communicating with each other, both parties articulate that they have the same problems. He stated that the Mother thinks the Father is a control freak and vice versa, that they’re hostile towards one another in communication and that both think they’re being marginalized. He was unable to render an opinion as to a “guilty party” in the area of communication problems. Dr. Favaro testified that both parties indicated that there was conflict from the beginning of the relationship, that they weren’t very compatible and a lot of the issues revolved around suspicion and mistrust. He stated that both complained of control issues, and the Father indicated the relationship ended because they never got along. Dr. Favaro testified that the Mother made generalized allegations about the Father’s drug use but gave no specific time frame. He testified that the Mother refers to the Father having bipolar disorder. He stated that bipolar can go into remission for a period of time, even a long period of time, and that if there had been reports from the Father’s therapists that would have been helpful. Referring to page 14 of his Report, Dr. Favaro testified that the Mother says the children are told to call Dad’s wife “Mommy,” which is an indication of bad judgment on behalf of the Father. He stated that the Mother told him that she inspected Father’s phone as he was corresponding with a transvestite and showed him screenshots of a conversation she had with that transvestite. Dr. Favaro testified that the Father admitted that he kicked down a bathroom door. He stated that domestic violence is an important consideration which he was ordered to look into, but that both parties accuse each other of same and he made no findings in that regard. At trial, he stated, that the court should be aware that he thought it was important enough to bring to the court’s attention but notes that these allegations preceded the 2020 Order. Dr. Favaro testified that the Mother showed him the many emails sent by the Father, that the emails were insulting. He stated that in a June 12, 2023 email the Father called her “paranoid and delusional” “low class and pathetic” and “a sad excuse for a mother.” He stated that high conflict litigants always say the other is crazy, horrible, etc. and that this behavior filters down to the children and harms them. Dr. Favaro testified that he observed a video, provided by the Mother, taken at a baseball game and that the video indicated that nobody can get along including Father’s current wife. He observed that the Mother dropped something out of her purse and Dad kicked it out of her reach. Dr. Favaro testified that the children have been in therapy but stated that he would not agree that they should continue or return because “the primary agents of change in the child’s life are the parents” and if the parents are providing 100 plus hours of contact with the children on a regular basis compared to a therapist seeing them one hour a week, that’s not an effective way of assisting adjustment, especially when the parents will tell the therapist different things. He testified that it’s a great tool for child who’s having difficulties in adjusting to school, having sadness, etc. but that to shovel the kids off to therapy to fix problems the parents should’ve fixed long ago isn’t an effective way to fix things. He states that the parents here have to change, not the children. He further testified that the parents would not benefit from going to therapy because “you go to therapy because you want to change, not because you want someone to tell you that you’re justified in feeling angry at someone who’s mistreated you” but rather that it’s about you deciding what you can contribute to a more collaborative relationship with a person who’s helping you raise a child. He stated that most therapists won’t do that as they become advocates for their clients. Referring to page 19 of his Report, Dr. Favaro testified that Brian had a doctor visit in August 2022. He stated that leg bruises set off a chain reaction that led to a trip to the emergency room which led to contact with CPS. Dr. Favaro testified that he observed pictures of the leg bruises, that there were investigations on both sides of the case, they were challenged, some were indicated, some weren’t. In a physical sense he stated that he did not find anything that was consistent with physical abuse. He noted that he’s not a forensic pathologist and that it’s difficult to be certain from pictures without confirmation from a pathologist. He stated that looking at the bruises didn’t point him in one direction or another. He testified that he agrees with Dr. Roa that the marks on the child looked “like finger pads” but stated that you don’t know where the bruises came from and when they’re on “bony prominences” those aren’t indicative of abuse. On fleshy areas he stated that those can be indicators of grab marks, but you can’t rule it in or out. He testified that if you have a concern and there’s a mark that could be related to an injury you go to the doctor. Referring to page 4 of his Report, he testified that these children might be “doomed.” He stated that the parties would be best served if they used their respective strengths and talents cooperatively, if they could “put down their swords” and could not be so quick to attack. He testified that when children are in single parent families, if you want to prevent them from growing up to suffer the consequences of a high conflict divorce “all you have to do is love your children” but that the behavior of these parties indicates that they don’t love their children. He testified that there’s no solution here, that we try and we have all of these interventions that we mistakenly believe are fairy dust for high conflict parents but what we actually see is that these cases come back to court over and over again. Dr. Favaro testified that parallel parenting is something he often recommends. He stated that with parallel parenting, each parent has their own separate universe, that you make it so the only time the parents communicate with each other is for an event or some kind of emergency as you want to keep people with this high conflict away from each other. He also testified that if these children moved to one parent or the other with reduced parenting time to the other it wouldn’t cure the problem and, conversely, an order of 50/50 parenting time wouldn’t cure it either. He stated that parallel parenting should be used here. On cross-examination by the Father’s attorney, Dr. Favaro was asked that with parallel parenting, if one of the parents violates what’s best for the children, should there be a consequence? He testified that he believes that people are motivated by “hope of reward or fear of punishment,” so where are there no rewards because the rewards of co-parenting are intrinsic ones, the only alternative is punishment. Dr. Favaro testified that the children have “loyalty issues” and that that is the most common behavioral pattern that children show in cases like this. He stated that they don’t want to disappoint their parents so they tell their parents what they think they want to hear, and that’s what he suspects happened here. He stated that when children are asked what they speak about in the car on the way to his office and they say daddy told them what to say and they repeat it, and the same thing happened with the mom, he considers that influencing them. Regarding the allegation that Dad punched Brian in the throat, Dr. Favaro didn’t know if Brian “got that” from the Mother, but he believes Brian was influenced to tell him that by the Mother. Dr. Favaro explained that domestic violence can have multiple meanings, that physical violence is battery and emotional violence is “coercive control” and that it can apply to children, not just a partner, and that influence is a form of control. Entrapment, he stated, means that you’re trying to sequester them into your experiential world by entrapping them. Dr. Favaro testified that he made a report to CPS as he’s a mandated reporter. He stated that his perception of the truthfulness of an allegation is outside the scope of his professional responsibility to report, it’s any suspicion. He testified that he accompanied his report to CPS with a statement that, “I don’t think these things happened, but I have to report in the event that they might’ve happened,” and as a result there were investigations. Dr. Favaro testified that the children made various inconsistent statements. He stated that this is in part due to emotional coercion, and in part due to stress as children don’t like to “tattle” on their parents, they want to protect their parents because they love their parents. Dr. Favaro testified that the parties here do have certain strengths: they are both fiercely devoted to their children, they put their children’s needs at a high level and they love their children. He reiterated that parallel parenting time is needed because they can’t put those strengths ahead of their bad feelings about the other. He testified that it’s inevitable that each parent will express bad feelings toward the other to the children but “you pick the least detrimental alternative.” Dr. Favaro testified that you could reduce one parent’s access which would come from a finding that one parent did something detrimental. He testified that “we are in a room of very important strangers” as the judge and everyone else don’t know the children like the parents do so they have to help the professionals. He stated that “No one comes to church without sin.” He testified that he found strengths and weaknesses in each parent and noted that you can make the assumption that the parties made a decision in the best interests of the children when they entered into the 2020 Order, but there could be other reasons. He stated that it’s the intent of both parties to get their pound of flesh, to win something, to teach the other person a lesson and that if they were listening and taking this to heart they’d not do the same things: allege assault, etc. Dr. Favaro testified that, here, parallel parenting is in the children’s best interests because the parties are away from one another and not “in the arena” with one another as research shows that when kids are exposed to parental bickering, they are subject to the same consequences as if they were being physically abused. He testified that the consequences of emotional abuse are the same as physical abuse: mental health issues, behavioral issues, academic performance issues, juvenile delinquency, alcohol, drugs, etc. After speaking with the parties, Dr. Favaro testified that doesn’t believe the Father punched Brian in the throat. He testified that there’s a bone in the neck called a “hyoid process”, and if you’re struck in the neck and that process breaks you die. He noted that Father is a “big man” and that punching his child in the neck, with high probability, would damage the child in such a way that he wouldn’t recover. He stated that he didn’t observe any bruises to Brian’s neck or receive any photos. He noted that if such photos existed he would’ve gotten them. With regard to abuse, he testified that there is always a consequence to the accused because the court wants to protect children from the possibility of abuse, but there’s almost never a consequence to the accuser. He stated that there should be, that it should be taken as a negative in the distribution of custodial rights. He stated that it’s not his place to determine whether someone has made a malicious allegation, but there should be consequences once a finding is made. On cross-examination by the children’s attorney, Dr. Favaro was asked how he views the issue of lying, and he testified that there’s one empirical finding that he relies on when children talk about these events — whether their affect matches their content, which he clarified to mean that allegations are more likely to be true when their emotions match the content of what they’re saying. Dr. Favaro heard from both children and testified that their affect did not match the content of what they were saying. By way of example he stated that if someone is saying they were punched in the throat and they’re very matter of fact and giggling five seconds later, then the affect doesn’t match the content; if they say they were lying previously, its consistent. When Brian told Dr. Favaro that he was lying, Dr. Favaro testified that he looked very sad. He noted that the children were more forthcoming about their Mother telling them to say things. He testified that the children would say “Mom told me to say this, but it was a lie”, not that “mom told me to lie.” Regarding the effect of being told to or encouraged to lie Dr. Favaro stated that its very dysregulating to a child. He testified that one very very important task to accomplish when raising a child is to help children learn how important it is to be truthful, so they’re missing something if they don’t understand that. For children of this age, he stated that empirical evidence is clear that most children know the difference between the truth and a lie by age three or four and whether they’re willing to lie is influenced by a lot of things including child rearing and loyalty to one parent or another. He stated that neither parent should encourage lying. Dr. Favaro testified that the children’s statements were different depending on which parent brought them to a visit, that whoever they came with was the side they supported. If parallel parenting was to be agreed upon, Dr. Favaro stated that the attorneys should put together an agreement containing certain rules: Neither parent has the right to make a decision that effects the other person’s parenting time. The parents should not communicate about the children’s day to day activities unless it’s on a neutral platform like Our Family Wizard, and the parents should not correspond verbally. The parents should not see each other for anything other than incidental contact during transitions, and schedules of access should be divided in blocks so there aren’t multiple transitions that have the parents interacting with one another. Dr. Favaro testified that the most important conversation to have with the children at that point is to let them know that mommy and daddy have decided that we’re going to be nice to each other because that’s what best for you. He was asked about the psychological impact on the children if the parties can’t get to that agreement, and he testified that it’s pretty well established — that their maladjustment will be inevitable — they’re not maladjusted now; they’re sweet, kind and loving now, but they’ll go there. On re-direct by the Mother’s attorney, Dr. Favaro testified that, regarding the story told by Brian about getting punched in the throat, Brian said it to the Mother, Eva corroborated and said it happened and also said she didn’t see anything. He testified that he doesn’t know how old Brian was at the time, maybe 5, and that he demonstrated it for him. He stated that Brian drew his hand in a closed fist forward in a punching motion and he said he was vomiting as a result. That concluded Dr. Favaro’s testimony. On the next court date the Mother withdrew her pending “22D” petition and the trial continued with respect to the Father’s petitions. Testimony of the Father, B.J.R. The Father testified as his own first witness. He stated that he resides at XXXXXX in Massapequa Park, having purchased his home in April of 2022 with his wife, C.R.. He described the home as a five-bedroom two and a half bath, and stated same has a swimming pool, basketball hoops in both the front and back of the house, a playroom for children and “just everything.” He stated that resides there with his wife, their son Julian who was born in May of 2022, Cathy’s son Gabriel who is 8 years old and has severe medical issues rendering him fully homebound, and C’s daughter Veronica who is 10 years old. The Father testified that the parties entered into the 2020 Order when he was residing in a 3 bedroom apartment in Maspeth, Queens and the Mother was residing in Howard Beach with her mother. He testified that in Spring of 2022 the Mother decided to move to Nassau and he and his wife decided to buy a house in Massapequa. He stated that the Mother now owns a home in East Rockaway and the children attend school at Rhame Avenue which is “right around the corner” from the Mother’s house. He testified that Brian is in first grade, Eva is in kindergarten, that both children start school at 8:40 and Brian is dismissed at 3:00 and Eva is dismissed ten minutes earlier at 2:50. The Father testified that if he were granted custody the children would go to school at Birch Lane Elementary which is five blocks from his home and starts at 9:15 a.m. and ends at 3:15. He testified that he drops the children off two or three days a week at regular start time and picks them up at regular dismissal. He testified that the Mother drops them off around 7:45 a.m. and they attend an after-school program which ends at 4:00 or 5:00 when it’s the Mother’s parenting time. The Father testified that on June 4, 2022 they were planning a party for Gabriel and he was supposed to get the children on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. but he received an email from the Mother stating that he was not going to see the children that weekend. He testified that when he inquired, the Mother said that Brian had bruises on his leg and she had taken him to the emergency room and a CPS case was opened. The Father stated that the Mother took Brian to both the pediatrician and the emergency room, which he learned via email from the Mother sent after the fact. He testified that he spoke with a CPS worker within a few days thereafter, and the investigation was ultimately unfounded. He testified that he did not see the children at all that weekend, but spoke to them on FaceTime on Saturday during which he stated “they weren’t allowed to speak freely.” The Father testified that he went to the children’s school on Monday June 6th and went to Brian’s classroom and took him out to lunch. He stated that he noticed faint bruises on Brian’s knee, and that he was not the cause of the bruises. He testified that when he dropped Brian back at school he went and gave Eva a hug and kiss and told her he loved her and then left. The Father was asked on cross-examination what he thinks happened regarding the bruises on Brian’s legs and he stated that he didn’t know what happened, that he never saw the bruises, that the Mother produced photos but he doesn’t know when they were taken or how the bruises got there. On cross-examination, the Father testified that he had not taken Brian out to lunch prior to that day as the children had never been withheld from him before. He testified that after the lunch he called CPS on the Mother and “relayed what he told me.” On further cross-examination he testified that, other than this incident, he does not recall calling CPS. When questioned by the children’s attorney the Father testified that he had taken Brian out of school on several occasions during lunchtime, one time around his birthday, and that another time he took him to a Mets game. The Father conceded that he was aware that about a year ago the Mother had taken Brian out of school about an hour early to go to the dentist and when asked if he had sent the Mother a “nasty email saying that it was irresponsible to remove this kid from school when she could’ve made the appointment later” the Father said that he didn’t recall what he said in the email but “I may have said something.” On Tuesday June 7, 2022 the Father testified that he did not see the children “but not as initially scheduled” as he went to pick them up from school and they weren’t there. He testified that the Mother emailed him stating that she had picked up the children, that he contacted his attorney, and that he then drove to the Mother’s house and called the Nassau County Police Department. He testified that when the police arrived, he showed them the order, they went to the Mother’s door and after 15 to 20 minutes they gave the children to him. The Father testified that the Mother filed a Family Offense petition as a result, and numerous additional petitions around that time. On cross-examination the Father testified that the whole thing angered him, that he’s still angry that that happened and that he’s angry anytime the children are withheld from him. He testified that Brian had bruises on his legs and stated that the Mother should have spoken to him before taking the child to a doctor, that he was wrongly charged in this incident and that the Mother influenced Brian. He testified that he believed that the Mother should have let him have the children even after the doctor and CPS visit because there was no order allowing her to withhold them. The Father testified that the CPS case was later unfounded. The Father testified that the children have bruises all the time from doing “normal children activities”, that the children love to climb on things and ride scooters and climb on playgrounds and that he has, at times, seen bruises on the children but stated that there may have been once or twice when he asked what happened if there was a “notable bruise.” He testified on cross-examination that he never accused the Mother of anything based on bruises and he’s never sought medical attention for either child for bruises. The Father testified that he was not arrested in June of 2022 but was arrested in July of 2022. He stated that on Tuesday June 28th he picked up the children from school to commence his visitation period, and on Wednesday June 29th there was nice weather and that he and his wife and the children stayed home, went in the pool, played basketball, went out to dinner and went to get ice cream. He testified that the Mother had a “relatively long FaceTime” with them that evening “and everything seemed fine” and he dropped the children off at school on Thursday June 30th. The Father testified that later that day he received an email from the Mother asking if Brian had thrown up, and another email with the same inquiry on Friday. He testified that on Friday July 1, 2022, the Mother took the children to the police station, which he learned on July 2, 2022 when he went to pick up the children and the Mother did not bring them to the exchange location at TD Bank in Merrick. He stated that he then emailed the Mother at least once and then called his attorney. He testified that he then drove to the Mother’s house and called the Nassau County Police Department, and when the police arrived he showed them the order and asked for their assistance. He testified that when the police went to the door he saw the Mother show them a piece of paper and that the police them came to his car to speak with him and arrested him for felony assault and for violating the Order of Protection that was in place at the time. He stated that there may have been one or two other minor charges but those were the “major” ones. He testified that the Mother sent him an email after he was served with the order of protection, which was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 and states “I hope that you are aware, if Brian says you hit him, or say disparaging things about me in front of the kids you will be arrested.” He stated that he took that email as a threat and did not respond. He testified that he was arrested and charged and ultimately the D.A. moved to dismiss the charges. The Father testified that he is an attorney, was admitted to the bar in 2009, that he graduated from Florida State University in 2004 with a BS in Finance and graduated in 2007 from Hofstra University School of Law. He stated that he is currently employed by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP in Manhattan as managing attorney and director of the managing clerk’s office and his function is primarily litigation support, providing procedural advice and managing clerks who handle things like filing, service, and calendar management. He stated that he has a flexible hybrid schedule and, at most, he goes into the city Mondays and Fridays and the other days he works remotely from home. The Father testified that a felony conviction would result in an automatic disbarment. He stated that “based on the paperwork that I saw, it was alleged that I punched my son in the throat and he vomited.” He testified that the child never vomited, that he never punched him, that he never slapped or hit him in the throat. He stated that he is about six feet tall and weighs 245 pounds and he was approximately the same size in July of 2022, while he stated that Brian was 40 pounds and 36 or 37 inches tall at the time. He testified that he never noticed any injury to Brian’s throat or neck. He stated that, based on receipts sent to him by the Mother, he believes Brian was taken to a doctor Saturday night July 2nd and the incident was alleged to have occurred on Wednesday. Regarding the arrest, the Father testified that he spent the night in jail and was released the following morning and that though the D.A. sought a stay away order none was issued. He testified that the only Order of Protection was issued in Family Court. The Father testified that his next contact with the children was by FaceTime on July 3, 2022. He testified that he has seen the Mother’s cellphone and that he is listed in her phone as C-U-N-T, which he learned when she sent him an email containing a screenshot from her phone of a missed call. He testified that this was the same phone through which he would have FaceTime calls with the children. He stated that Brian was able to read in June and July of 2022. The Father testified that he did not see the children on July 4, 2022 as he requested parenting time and the Mother denied same, which denial she told him was due to the arrest. He testified that he again requested parenting time on July 5th and 6th and the Mother continued to deny the requests due to alleged abuse, though he stated that he told her there were no orders in effect keeping him away from the children. The Father stated that he then had his attorney file an order to show cause on July 7, 2022 in this court seeking enforcement of the 2020 Order. He testified that the order to show cause was granted and it was ordered that the 2020 Order be complied with. On Tuesday July 12, 2022 the Father testified that, knowing the Mother had been served with the order to show cause, he contacted her requesting his parenting time and initially she said she would get back to him and they’d exchange the children later, but that he didn’t see the children that day or the next day. He testified that the parties had a scheduled court appearance for July 14, 2022 and thatthe Mother said “we will see what happens in court.” The Father testified that on July 14, 2022 the court ordered a forensic evaluation, supervised visitation through Kids in Common, and that the schedule in the 2020 Order be complied with with the Father’s mother as a supervisor for his scheduled parenting time. He testified that his mother, P.R., has a master’s degree in social work and is 68 years old, and that his father is deceased. He testified that he complied with the directives of the court and that his visitation remained supervised until September. He stated that during that two-month period his mother would have to sleep at his house during his visitation as she doesn’t live with him. The Father testified that while some makeup time was provided for the missed visits, “it definitely was not equal.” The Father testified that in October of 2022 the Mother again alleged that he had punched Brian and denied his weekend parenting time and did not offer to allow the parenting time if supervised by his mother. The Father testified that the children were in therapy at Expressive Connections in Lynbrook until October of 2022 where they saw Joanna Freda who had a “limited permit in social work” and was still working towards a further degree. He testified that Ms. Freda was working under the supervision of Christina DiBernardo. The Father stated that the week after the October 2022 punching allegation he took Eva for a therapy appointment and explained that a letter had been filed with the court by the Mother, and as a result the children were discharged from therapy. The Father testified that he was not arrested for the “second punch” allegation and he believes Brian was taken to urgent care and the Mother provided those records that “just said pain in throat.” The Father testified that in August of 2022 the Mother sent him an email telling him to “refrain from tickling Brian’s private parts” and that she had seen him doing it when Brian was a baby. At the time, he stated that Amy Miller was their CPS caseworker because there was a neglect proceeding going on. He testified that there was no open case about these allegations, but that she asked him questions about it. He testified that he told her it was absurd, it never happened, and he stated that nothing came of it to his knowledge. He testified that he brought it to the attention of Dr. Favaro when he forwarded an email that the Mother had sent a letter to the children’s attorney in January stating that it’s a new allegation. He stated that that allegation went nowhere. The Father testified that he’s enrolled the children in all of their extracurricular activities beginning in April of 2021 when Brian was almost 4 and the Father enrolled him in T-ball in Queens. He testified that Brian was also enrolled in a hip hop dance class and that the Mother was okay with it as long as it was during his parenting time but that she objected to enrolling him in a karate athletic class because it was her day to pick the children up from school. He testified that he enrolled Brian in baseball in Farmingdale last year as he lived in Farmingdale at his mother’s house for a few months and that Brian played one season in Farmingdale has since done three seasons of baseball and five seasons of basketball in Massapequa. He testified that baseball is one weekend game and one weekday each week and that basketball is more structured with one certain day each week. He stated that Brian’s current basketball league is St. Rose CYO and baseball is Massapequa Coast Little League and that he’s been the coach. The baseball and basketball seasons overlap somewhat and the Father testified that Brian never missed a baseball game when with him, and he missed one basketball game because they went to see Santa Claus instead. The Father testified that Eva’s first extracurricular activity was a ballet class at Christ the King School in Queens. When he moved to Long Island, the Father testified that he enrolled Eva in a dance class, and he enrolled both children in swimming and that he had discussed it with the Mother. He stated that she had objected because she said Eva doesn’t like dance, but that the Mother attended dance recitals and took Eva to dance “sporadically.” He stated that he’s never missed any dance recitals or dance classes. He stated that the Mother has missed baseball games for Brian quite often, she missed basketball games quite often. He stated that he never did anything to prevent her from attending and that he didn’t do anything to prevent her from attending swimming lessons. He stated that swimming was her idea and that he consented because she said they were interested so he signed them up in her town. He stated that he brought them to lessons and the Mother did also although there were times she missed. On cross-examination the Father testified that Brian’s games are held at different parks in Massapequa 5 to 15 minutes from his house on Saturday or Sunday, and the times fluctuate from 10:00 a.m. to anytime during the day. When asked on cross-examination if he considered the possibility that the Mother would have other plans on her weekends with the children, the Father stated that, as a parent, while there may be conflicts here and there it’s “a little ridiculous” to say that you can’t take the child to a baseball game every weekend. The Father testified that on June 9, 2023, Brian had a baseball game and he was there, the Mother was there and his wife was there. He stated that he was on the field coaching Brian, he saw the Mother and his wife face to face and it seemed like the Mother was talking to his wife “aggressively.” After the game, he stated that there was a verbal altercation. He testified that his wife Cathy went to say goodbye to Brian and the Mother said “ew” and laughed and he said things to the Mother that weren’t appropriate. Upon inquiry he stated that he called the Mother “trash” and told her to “keep her mouth shut” which he says he regrets. He acknowledged that Dr. Favaro testified about that incident and testified that he had kicked a pack of gum that had fallen out of the Mother’s purse. He agreed that it was not one of his finer co-parenting moments. He testified that the next day Brian did not show up for the last regular season game. The day after that was the all-star game and he testified that he asked the Mother if Brian would be attending and she said “no.” The Father testified that 19 out of the 20 children on the team attended that game. He testified that he called the Mother “trash” and stated that he does not recall calling her “pathetic” but it’s possible. He testified that he does not believe this would have a serious long-term effect on the children, though it’s obviously not a good thing to have an argument in front of the children. On cross-examination he admitted that during this incident he called the Mother certain derogatory names and concede that the Mother had told him on Our Family Wizard that she did not want to attend games when he was present. He testified that there were numerous games she did not attend prior to June 9th and that during Brian’s first season of T-ball the Mother didn’t go to one game and he felt that that was “extremely poor parenting.” On June 10th the Father testified that Eva had her end of year dance recital and that he wasn’t sure if Eva would be going because Brian hadn’t shown up to baseball that day, but they went anyway even though his messages were ignored. He stated that the Mother did bring Eva and they saw her perform and gave her flowers. He stated that no words were exchanged with the Mother at the dance recital. The Father testified that Eva missed dance at least five times when she was with her Mother, and she missed swimming a few times when in the Mother’s care although swimming is near the Mother’s home. The Father testified that Brian has missed significant amounts of extracurricular activities when in the Mother’s care and that this baseball season he attended less than half of the games. The Father testified that he attends all the activities at the school including back to school night for Brian and a Halloween parade. On parent teacher conference night, he stated that he attended alone, and that he attended the Halloween parade while the Mother did not. The Father testified that the only Father’s Day he missed was in 2019 while in 2022 he reached out to the Mother to see what hours she wanted for Mother’s Day because it fell on his weekend and that though she initially gave him a time window, she later said she wouldn’t be seeing the children on Mother’s Day because someone made plans to take her away that weekend. The Father testified that his children refer to his wife Cathy as “Cathy” or “Gioia” which is a Sicilian term of endearment that he believes means “joy.” He stated that, for a period of time, the children referred to her as “Mommy Cathy.” He testified that he and his wife started correcting the children when they learned that the court didn’t think that was appropriate. He did not recall whether the Mother told him to not to let the children call his wife Mommy, but she made it clear she was not happy. He testified that the children refer to other people as “Mommy” including their grandmother, and the Mother’s boyfriend’s mother at one point but that the children were never told to call his wife “Mommy.” The Father testified that both children were baptized in the Catholic faith by the parties’ joint decision at birth — Brian was baptized April 2018 and Eva was baptized in October of 2021. He stated that they do not currently receive any religious instruction thought they are registered in St. Rose in his town and they attend church with him occasionally. He testified that the parties had a conversation about religious education, which starts in first grade when children attend public school, and that he had asked the Mother if she had registered Brian for religious education and she said she had not. He stated that he told her he would register Brian and the Mother told him that he cannot as Brian is not going to be raised Catholic, she said that she was not raised Catholic, so Brian will not be raised Catholic. He testified that confirmation comes in 7th grade, and that the children would first receive communion in 2nd grade. He testified that if you don’t attend Catholic school, you’d attend religious education and then you’d receive communion which happens at the same time as reconciliation. He stated that there’s time to remedy the situation but going forward if the children do not attend religious education they will not receive communion. He stated that if he was given custody of the children he would raise them Catholic and that when you baptize children you’re making an oath to the Catholic church to raise the children Catholic. He testified that the Mother planned Eva’s baptism and chose her godparents. With respect to the children’s medical care, the Father testified that he doesn’t know the current pediatrician as it’s been changed so many times. He stated that the children had a regular pediatrician when the parties were living in Queens that they had mutually agreed upon and that they had continued to go to the same doctor in Queens after the Mother moved to East Rockaway. He stated that the Mother told him about a year ago that she changed the doctor and that the Mother did not notify him of the change in advance and he does not know the name of the doctor. He testified that Veronica has a regular pediatrician in Rockville Centre and if he were granted custody of the children he would consult with the Mother and try to agree on a pediatrician going forward. When asked if he has any other regrets, the Father testified that over the years, and more specifically the last 18 months since the proceedings have started, he’s sent numerous messages to the Mother that are not appropriate that he regrets. Looking back, preparing for the trial and reading things back “you see things that you’re not proud and I’m certainly sorry for a lot of things that were said.” He stated that his goal going forward would be to have better communication where its more respectful and they’re courteous to each other. On cross- examination by the Mother’s attorney, an Our Family Wizard message from the Father to the Mother dated December 17, 2022 was entered into evidence as Respondent’s A and the Father read the following into the record: “You are an abusive lying piece of shit. I know it, you know it, and the kids know it. Spend less time to trying to prove I caused some small scratch on Eva’s face and more time actually being a good parent and influence on your children’s lives. What you have done to these children the past six months is beyond disgraceful. I very much look forward to going to trial on custody because you’re 100 percent right that everything you have done and continue to do will be brought to light. You are abusive, using your children as pawns in some sick game and without a doubt not in the best interest of these children.” He testified that he regrets some of the language he used, but that there are things that are said in that message that are true. The Father testified that he believes he’d be the better custodial parent because the children’s best interests would be met better living in Massapequa — their extracurricular activities and school hours would be better. He stated that he’s never restricted the Mother’s access and would not. The Father testified that his current wife does not work although she’s a registered nurse. He and his wife have an 18-month-old child and he stated that they tried daycare for some time but he was getting sick a lot and his wife likes to be home to assist the nurse that’s on premises to assist his stepson who requires 24 hour medical care. The Father testified that when he goes into the office, his wife is always there to assist with the children. If the Mother were to get custody, the Father testified that the children won’t be exposed to as many extracurriculars or as much time with family as their school days are extremely long. He testified that he and his wife want the Mother to be part of the children’s lives, but he believes the joint custodial relationship has completely broken down since the 2020 Order. The Father testified that there was never an issue between the parties from the date of the agreement until April of 2022 which coincides with his getting married, buying his house and having a new baby. He stated that the Mother references his family as “The Brady Bunch.” He testified that his extended family live nearby including his mother in Farmingdale, his sister and her two children in Massapequa and his wife’s sister, husband and three kids in East Meadow. The Father testified that when the children are with the Mother he looks to call them on FaceTime twice a day. He stated that there is no delineated time in the prior order but that the court directed a timeframe. He denied that he “construed” the order to mean a specific timeframe, but that his understanding was that the judge ordered a specific timeframe, which was not reduced to writing but exists “in a transcript somewhere.” The Father testified it is not his regular practice that the Mother does not get the call outside the designated window, but that it happened “a few times” right after the “window” was set. He testified that there was a time that he “was being strict with the court’s window” but that that hasn’t been the case for some time. When questioned, he agreed that this is “probably not” in the best interest of the children but that there “should be some structure.” He agreed that the FaceTime contact is beneficial to the children and the Mother. On cross-examination an email chain between the parties dated September 14, 2022, and an Our Family Wizard communication between the parties dated February 15, 2023 were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits J and K. In each communication, the Mother had indicated that she’d tried to call the children for FaceTime and each time the Father was, as he testified, strictly adhering to the “FaceTime window.” The Father was asked by the children’s attorney on cross-examination if he believed the FaceTime calls are a “flashpoint” for the parties, and he disagreed stating that while dialog has occurred between the parties during the FaceTime calls these occurrences amount to one to two percent of the time, if that. He further testified that he has cameras throughout his home including the children’s bedroom and that during the Mother’s FaceTimes he may be present at times, but if she asks for privacy it’s not a problem. When asked by the children’s attorney if he has ever invaded the Mother’s privacy during FaceTime calls by listening in, he denied doing so and stated that the Mother has asked him a few times recently to speak to the children on FaceTime in private and that he has the children go down to the family room which is a private area. He FaceTimes with the children twice a day when they’re with the Mother. He testified that he tried to adhere to the court’s directive regarding timeframe but those calls are never answered and the Mother usually calls back an hour or so later with the morning calls being made from the car between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m.. He testified that he has asked for a new location as the reception is poor and the ride to school is short. The Father testified that his evening FaceTime calls are supposed to take place between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m., and the Mother typically calls him back at “8:30-ish.” The Father testified that, though he reported to Dr. Favaro that the Mother has accused him of being a drug abuser, alcoholic, bipolar and borderline and that he has “solicited transgenders” that the allegations were untrue, that he has no such diagnoses, and that while he had a prior DWI conviction in 2012 he was not convicted of any crime after the entry of the prior order. He testified that he attended therapy in Manhattan with a Dr. Gadh, who he had found online for issues dealing with “an extremely difficult co-parent” and work-related stress, and that he stopped seeing Dr. Gadh in summer of 2021. He testified on cross-examination that he had been diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed Adderall at a 30 mg dose which he took during a six-month period from early 2021 through summer of 2021. He testified that he discontinued the medication in August of 2021 because of certain side effects of the medication that he disliked, a decision he said he discussed with his treating physician. The Father conceded, upon inquiry, that he was mandated at one point to complete a 10-week anger management class in 2018 by the Queens Criminal Court as a result of a “domestic incident” between himself and the Mother. He testified that completion of the course was part of the agreement that was reached, and that the charge was dismissed upon completion. The Father testified that the Mother refuses to communicate in a healthy manner but that his communication with the Mother is done in a healthy manner “at times yes, obviously at times, no.” When asked if it was a fair statement that virtually every email in the last 18 months from him to the Mother have been “a criticism, a denigration of her personally or of her parenting skills” he denied same, stating that there were many other emails that were not of such a nature and stating that he’s been “under attack.” On cross-examination by the children’s attorney, when asked about the numerous emails entered into evidence, the Father conceded that the language he used in the emails was demeaning, insulting, condescending and rude. The Father testified on cross-examination that there was an indicated case and neglect petition filed against both parties which resolved by an ACOD. He testified that the neglect petition was filed because the children were saying conflicting things and CPS didn’t know what to make of it so they indicated the case against both parents. During cross-examination by the children’s attorney, the court took judicial notice of an Order dated February 21, 2023 issued by another justice of this court under the neglect docket, NN-00190-23 which states, in relevant part, that “the respondents B.J.R. and P.E.D., having consented to a finding of neglect without admission, upon consent of the petitioner and the attorney for the child.” On cross-examination, emails from the Father to the Mother dated February 2, 2022, March 12, 2022, February 3, 2022, February 2, 2022, June 10, 2023 were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits C through G. In the emails the Father insults the Mother and her home, referring to her as a “disgusting diseased slob,” “pathetic pathological liar,” and “low class individual,” discussing her “rage filled temper tantrums” “angry and incoherent rants” and saying that his life is “amazing right now and yours sucks.” He referred to her “tiny house” and said that she has “mental issues.” He conceded that these emails were “not nice.” A series of emails between the parties dated September 25th and 26th of 2020 was entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit I. The discussion pertained to the Father not having a car, which he testified was as a result of it having been towed by the police department, but he was not sure why the car was towed. He states in the email “I already reached out to a psychiatrist. However, just know this was one very stupid mistake I made and it has not been anything ongoing…”. The Father testified that the one stupid mistake he made was hanging out with old friends that he shouldn’t have, that his old friends had spray paint on them, he’s not sure if they were engaged in graffiti but stated that he didn’t take part in any graffiti, but his car was towed. With respect to his claim that he would see a psychiatrist, he stated that in the moment of the correspondence he felt bad that he wasn’t seeing the kids and wasn’t happy about what had transpired but that there was no drinking involved and no specific reason for a psychiatrist. On further cross-examination, messages between the Father and Ms. Viggiano, the director of the school that Eva attended dated April 27, 2023, October 24, 2022, and between the Father and Kayla Gliptis a teacher at Eva’s school were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits M through O. In each communication the Father responded to inquiries from the school with ancillary disparaging comments about the Mother. On cross-examination by the children’s attorney the Father testified that he had asked the Mother numerous times when they would be getting Eva’s first haircut and the Mother said when she turns five. Eva turned five a couple of months ago. He testified that the Mother had told him there was some tradition that she had with regard to the first haircut, and he respected that and said that if it was in a public place he’d like to be a part of it as it’s a special moment. The Father testified that at some point the Mother had wanted the children in therapy and he had not. He stated that the children’s first therapist was Colleen Mullins, virtual only, who was found by the Mother and that the first time he learned the children were in therapy with her was when he was asked for reimbursement for a bill. He spoke with Ms. Mullins a few times via telephone. For the second therapist, the Father testified that both parties looked up numerous providers online and there was “a lot of communication back and forth” and they ultimately agreed on a provider. The Father testified that the parties have reached other joint conclusions before, specifically as it relates to some of their extracurricular activities, some early medical treatment, and earlier decisions regarding their religious upbringing. He testified that they are still able to come to agreements for certain things. The Father testified that a third therapist was suggested by the Mother and they agreed and that he and the Mother attended a “meet and greet” with that therapist and that they both behaved fine. He testified that there was another therapist who saw the children only once and that after that there was a lot of correspondence about finding a therapist and they agreed on Expressive Connections. He stated that the most recent therapist was Susie Grisner in Oceanside, but that stopped a few months ago. The Father testified that he agrees with Dr. Favaro’s statements about the children having therapy. The Father testified that he wishes to be the custodial parent and agreed that promoting a relationship with the other parent is important. The Father stated that he believes he has done that. When asked how, he stated that he has not withheld the children from the Mother, and that the children don’t see the emails. If he were the custodial parent, he testified that he would always act in the children’s best interests and if that meant he and the Mother “had to do something to promote our co-parenting relationship, I’d be happy to do that.” Following cross-examination by the children’s attorney, the Court inquired as to why the Father believes that the recommendations of Dr. Favaro should not be followed since, as the Father stated, “everybody’s made mistakes.” He stated that “I’m the first to admit that I have not been a perfect co-parent or parent; I mean, nobody’s perfect. I would say that I always keep my children’s best interests in mind, and I’ve never once had encouraged these children to tell lies. Dr. Favaro made it clear that lies were told here, and these children were directed to lie. I may have directed my children to say things; it was to tell the truth. And I’ve always done that, and I will always do that. I would never subject my children to — to telling lies about their mother or about anybody, and in my opinion, it was simply, you know, bitterness that caused this whole thing. It’s not a coincidence of the timeline here that as soon as I’m part of — I’m married and part of a family, that my children are now part of, all of these false allegations started, and I think it’s clear that there were false allegations.” The Court reiterated that both parties have made mistakes here, and again asked the Father why Dr. Favaro’s recommendations should not be followed. The Father stated that “Dr. Favaro stated that if it’s believed that one parent has told their children to tell lies about the other parent, that should be looked at by the Court as a negative factor, so I don’t think Dr. Favaro made a recommendation as to what he — he did say neither party has, I guess, clean hands as you said; we’d both done things to the children. But me directing my children to tell the truth and the other parent directing them to tell these terrible lies over and over and over again subjecting these innocent children to what they’ve been put through is — is unconscionable despicable behavior, and I think the children’s best interests would be promoted by being with the parent who does not engage in this conduct.” The Father testified that the only means of communication between the parties presently is through email and Our Family Wizard aside from a few verbal communications over FaceTimes. He testified that the number of their individual communications since 2020 is “probably in the thousands” and that he regrets acting improperly in less than 1 percent as the “vast majority of them are normal co-parenting communications.” When asked why in the past he’s been rude or insulting, the Father stated that there were emotions involved and the majority of those types of conversations were back and forth arguments which “were not nice either way.” The Father testified that on Easter of 2022, that he videotaped the Mother while dropping the children off at her home. He stated that he had emailed her letting her know that they were done early and that he wanted to meet to drop off the children. When she did not respond, he testified that he drove to her block and sent another email stating that the children were outside and asking if they could come in. He stated that the Mother responded angrily telling him not to come to her house and that she’d call the police, and that she came outside and approached his car and opened the passenger side door, so he started recording. The Father testified that the children were in the backseat of his car in their car seats at the time. He was asked by the children’s attorney whether the Mother had just been in court and asked to keep her address confidential and the Father testified that “it was already well-known that I — that I knew the address.” When asked if the Mother had said something to the effect of “what are you doing here when you know my address is supposed to be confidential” he testified that, following the incident, the Mother had sent him an email that said something like that. The Father testified that he purchased his current home in April of 2022 and that cameras were previously wired in the home. He stated that they did not utilize the cameras when they first moved in, but that after “the false incident regarding me punching Brian, I felt the need to protect myself and my family so we hired a company to have them all, you know, back up and running.” He stated that the cameras only record video, not audio. When his attorney asked why he had filed for a change of custody the Father stated that “I mean the ultimate reason that I ended up filing for the change of custody was because of the false arrest and the false allegations that started in July…I felt that it was no longer in the best interests of the children to remain with Paula as their custodial parent.” He testified that he believes that a parent should teach their children to tell the truth. The Father testified that, at the time of the 2020 Order, his intention was to have joint legal custody with the Mother having residential custody and receiving child support and that the parties would have parenting time “nearly 50 percent of the time.” With regard to Dr. Favaro’s suggestion of parallel parenting, the Father testified that that’s close to what the parties are doing currently in that the children are in different settings with each parent with different rules and they don’t try to do things the same. He stated that there may have been a “brief time” when they tried to communicate more but it “pretty much has always been parallel.” When asked if he agreed with Dr. Favaro that both parents have influenced the children in this case, he answered in the affirmative, and further testified that he had influenced them to tell the truth and he believed the Mother influenced them to lie. The Father testified that he would be the better parent for physical custody “because of the — the life that — that I’ll provide for these children emotionally, morally, physically in terms of you know, where they grow up, and just I mean, teaching them right from wrong. It’s — it’s just clear to me that we’ve — I’ve always tried to teach the children right from wrong, telling the truth, never lying about another parent. The extracurriculars that I put them in that — that — that they get to experience. All of these things they love. Their school hours. They get to go to school on time and get picked up on time. They have siblings at my house that they love, and they love to spend time with. I think all of these things weigh in my favor when looking at, you know, a custody evaluation and what would be in the best interests of these children.” He further stated that “I think the main reason is what these children have had to go through the last 18 months, and that none of this should have had to happen to these children, and they’ve been forced to undergo so much and talk to so many people, and it’s all been based on lies. And I just think that that ultimately is the main reason why custody should change here.” When asked how he would expect the parenting time to change if he were granted legal and physical custody, the Father testified that he would be open to liberal parenting time for the Mother, whatever fits with her work schedule. He stated that it’s difficult for her to see the kids a lot during the week with her work schedule, but she could have every other weekend, similar to what they have now. Testimony of the Mother: Paula Elisa D’Aguanno: The Mother was called to the stand as the Father’s second witness. The Mother testified that she has been employed as a high school guidance counselor for twelve years and at her current school, Grover Cleveland High School, for ten years. The Mother testified that she met the Father in January of 2016 and that they lived together at one point. She testified that she and the Father have had problems “since day one.” They entered into a stipulation in 2020, and she confirmed that they had agreed to be joint custodial parents. She testified that was aware of the Father’s prior DWI case at the time. She testified that she understands that joint custody means that they can both make decisions for children. When asked if that meant that she trusted the Father’s decision making at the time, the Mother testified that she just wanted the proceeding to be over and she wanted her children. She stated that “it was a very painful experience and I wanted it to be over. I had no fight left in me.” When asked if she thought the Father was “a suitable parent” she stated that “I didn’t want to continue fighting and litigating for years; I wanted the process to be over so my children could have some normalcy.” When asked how many petitions she’s filed since 2020, the Mother testified that “In 2020, after the graffiti arrest, Father refused psychological services for my children, despite very serious behavioral concerns that I had expressed to him” and then stated she wasn’t sure how many petitions she had filed, maybe five. The Mother was asked who brought the allegation that Brian was punched in the neck by the Father and she testified that both children were interviewed by the Safe Center. She stated that she did not have photos of the injuries, nor medical records pertaining to same. She testified that she took Brian to First Med. She did not recall how tall Brian was at the time. She agreed when asked if the Father is a “big man.” The Mother testified that she is a mandated reporter and that if there’s a safety concern she reports it and lets CPS investigate as it is not her job to investigate. She never took photos of an alleged injury on a student, nor has she referred anyone for medical treatment as she testified that is not her job. When asked if she had any evidence of the injury to Brian’s neck the Mother testified that “The Safe Center has forensic interviewers that interviewed my children. Based off of that interview is why [Father] was arrested.” She stated that she filed a police report after the children were interviewed. The Mother stated that she was aware the children met with Dr. Favaro and that she was aware his report is in evidence and that the report notes that there were conflicting stories about the punch to Brian’s neck. The Mother testified that the parties were in court on “other cases” at the time of the punch incident and that she had tried to stop the Father’s visitation “in good faith” before she filed the police report and that the Father’s visitation was not supervised until after he was arrested. The Mother was asked if she spoke with the Father before taking Brian to First Med following the punching incident and she stated that she did not, that “When there’s a safety concern, it trumps that Court Order that would have to — that I would have to provide [the Father] with that information.” She further testified that she’s afraid to tell the Father about an allegation of an injury because of their “DV history” and that “he pops up in places.” She testified that there came a time when the charges against the Father were dismissed on motion by the District Attorney. The Mother further testified that after the allegations of assault, she made further allegations about the Father touching Brian’s genitalia. She stated that she is a mandated reporter so that if she hears something she has to report it. The Mother was asked whether she’s acting as a parent or a mandated reporter when her son speaks to her and she stated that the two are not mutually exclusive. The Mother later testified that in winter of 2023 there was a “tickling incident” and that “I repeated exactly what my children said, and I went straight to the CPS worker at the time to let her know.” The Mother testified that, as a result, it is her understanding that CPS had a “conversation with [Father] about inappropriate touching.” The Mother testified that she withheld the children from the Father in January of 2023 “in good faith.” The Mother testified that she filed for and obtained an order of protection on June 21, 2022. She testified that the Father continued having parenting time after she obtained the order of protection and that she had emailed the Father “If Brian says you hit him…” and testified that “I always want to give like the father an opportunity to just stop any behaviors that are deleterious to my children without involving any kind of like police.” When asked why she used the word “if” in her email, she testified that “it was just more of like if there was something occurring where [the Father] was hurting my son I wanted him to stop.” The Mother testified that she came to court on July 5, 2022 and filed a violation petition seeking a full stay away order of protection “until an investigation could be done.” The Mother testified that there was an order of protection issued in the criminal case which protected her and the children but she did not obtain a final order of protection from criminal court as the matter was dismissed. The Mother testified she’s aware the parties have been “Shreve’d.” She testified that she withdrew her prior petitions and that she’s not seeking sole legal custody and that she’s ok keeping the terms of the prior order because the children need their father. When asked if she had anything good to say about the Father’s parenting she stated that “My children love him.” She stated that she has concerns about the way the Father supervises the children based off what the children say. The Mother testified that she knows the Father got married, and he moved to his house in Massapequa in 2022. She stated the petitions filed regarding this proceeding began June 3, 2022. She testified that she knows the Father has another child and that she’s met the child. She stated that she has never been to the Father’s home in Massapequa. She testified that she has never asked the Father about his living arrangements or where the children sleep at his house. She said she had asked him previously when he lived with his mother in 2021 or 2022, she was unsure when. She testified that the Father’s mother was the supervisor when his parenting time was supervised and that she holds a LMSW degree which makes her a mandated reporter as well. The Mother testified that the Father had a period of supervised visitation, which she requested, but she did not recall how long his visitation was supervised. She testified that she filed to stop visitation temporarily until there was an investigation and that, following the investigation, the Father’s parenting time was fully restored. She testified that investigations were prompted by “horrendous bruising on my son’s inner knees” that “covered the entire inner and outer knee of my son’s leg, some on his thigh.” She conceded that Brian has fallen while in her care, has fallen on a playground, but has never broken any bones. She testified that Brian was once brought to the emergency room on a doctor’s suggestion but that she did not tell the Father because of “safety concerns” related to the parties’ “DV history” and that the Father has “popped up places, has intimidated me.” The Mother testified that she sent the Father pictures of the bruises on June 4, 2022. She testified that they were in the doctor’s office “from 3 and then the emergency room ’til 12.” She testified that she later emailed the Father pictures of the bruises and that the Father responded saying that she was the one who bruised Brian. On cross-examination by her attorney, a series of photographs was entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit U. The Mother testified that they were photographs of Brian’s legs taken on June 2nd. She testified that when Brian showed her the bruises “He just started crying, and then my daughter saw him crying, she starts crying, she’s a very emotional child.” She testified that she asked the doctor “can you please evaluate these bruises and see if they’re consistent with a typical trauma or injury” and that the doctor then directed her to go to the emergency room and gave her a note on a prescription pad sheet of paper. The Mother testified that when they got to the emergency room and saw the doctor that she handed that doctor the prescription pad paper from the pediatrician. She stated that a “medical procedure was underway, it was going to happen, and then a social worker was called in.” She testified that she had not called CPS that day, and that she spoke to the worker briefly and then Brian spoke with the worker for about 15 minutes while she waited in the waiting room out of earshot. The Mother testified that after that Brian was given crayons and left with someone, maybe a nurse, and she spoke with the social worker for five minutes. She stated that a hemoglobin test was performed to determine whether Brian had a blood clotting disorder that causes bruises. She learned at the hospital that a CPS investigation would be ongoing and spoke to a case worker the next day. The case worker came to the house and spoke to Brian privately for three minutes, and the same with Eva. She did not call the police that weekend and stated that she did not recall when CPS rendered a determination. She testified that she told the Father why she was not releasing the children for parenting time and his response was “Typical intimidation from a lawyer.” She testified that she had sent photos of the bruises to the Father and that he responded by saying “these look like fresh bruising. It must have been done at your house” and filed an allegation with CPS against her. She testified that every time a CPS case is called in against him, he accuses her of the same thing. When asked if she’s tried to get the Father not to see the children through the court system, the Mother responded “Yes, but not for no reason.” The Mother testified that she went to court to seek intervention after the bruising, that she took Brian to the doctor on Thursday, CPS was at her house the next day, and she went to court the following week. She stated that she did not apologize to the Father after the assault charges were dismissed regarding the alleged punch, or after the supervised visitation was ended. She stated that she filed her petitions “in good faith.” She stated that there are times when the children are with the Father that she fears for their safety but that it’s not “each and every minute.” She testified that she has never noticed bruises on the children during FaceTime but has seen scratches. The Mother testified that there were emails she’s sent to the Father that she would consider nasty but that they were “far and few.” An email from the Mother to the Father dated February 3, 2022 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4. The Mother read an extensive portion of the email including “You are an incompetent sleezy lawyer. I spoke with rhame u alcoholic and they do not offer services for pre k. I have all the emails/call logs to back it up. Enough with ur attachments and your verbose and condescending emails…” The Mother testified that she sent that email to his work email address. She testified that she wouldn’t go out of her way to email him like that, she was responding to an email from him and she conceded it’s not appropriate. She testified that co-parenting means if another co-parent says please stop leave me alone the other parent should listen and that she had to resort to this type of language in response to being called names over and over again. The Mother stated that she has called the Father a pathetic loser in response to him. She testified that the email entered into evidence was a part of the parties’ discussion about child placement, the Father accused her of not speaking to the children’s school, said that if she can’t handle picking the children up that he and his wife and his family could handle it and that maybe the children should live with him, etc. Prior to February of 2022 the Mother testified that she believed the Father was living on Long Island. She stated that she had moved from Queens to East Rockaway three years ago and that she discussed the children’s choice of school three years ago with the Father. She stated that she offered options, including keeping the children in school in Queens since the Father was commuting into the city, and that Brian had been accepted into the gifted and talented program across the street from her job and she thought this would be good because in the event of an emergency she could pick them up right away. She testified that the Father had always driven into Long Island City and passed right by the school, so she thought it would be good for him as well. She stated that the school across from her job is not a regular school, it’s a gifted and talented program. She was unsure if there was any testing as it goes by teacher recommendations. She stated that she’s “pretty sure” she let the Father know but doesn’t exactly remember. Emails from the Mother to the Father from dates in early 2022 were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 5 through 8. In the emails the Mother refers to the Father as a “stupid narcissistic sociopath” and a “piece of shit” abbreviated to “pos” and various other insults, stated that the Father’s father had done a “piss poor job raising what was supposed to be a man” and testified that she had been aware that the Father’s father had passed away a few months prior to that email. In other emails she repeatedly refers to the Father’s wife as a “victim” and calls his family the “Brady Bunch.” The Mother testified that there was psychological abuse in her relationship with the Father and stated, “once an abuser always an abuser.” She noted that she has “three degrees in psychology” but she’s not an expert and has not diagnosed the Father with anything. Regarding the Brady Bunch reference, the Mother testified that the children have never lived with so many people in their lives, that the children have come home with injuries that the Father didn’t know about and that she is concerned that the children don’t have the attention they’re normally used to. She stated that she referenced the Brady Bunch based on probability, as there are more injuries because there are more people in the home and less adults to watch over them. She testified that there are 24 children in Brian’s class and two or three teachers but stated that it’s a different setting and its organized. The Mother testified that Eva had two dance recitals in June of 2022, she did not recall a recital in early February. Emails between the parties dated February 2, 2022 pertaining to the dance recital in June of 2022 were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. She was asked if she has refused to allow Eva to attend a scheduled event in February of 2022 and she said, “not exactly.” She clarified by saying that there were high Covid alerts that people were to avoid overcrowded areas indoors and that she was accepting the CDC’s recommendations as all responsible New Yorkers should have been. She’s not sure if she sent Eva to school at that time. She stated that it’s hard for her to remember when she returned to work as “Covid is a blur for me.” She testified that Eva may have been at school at the time but that an event in a big auditorium with lots of people is “a different animal.” The Mother testified that there was a dance recital that she attended with her family in June of 2023. She did not remember if she had attended a prior dance recital. She testified that she did not do indoor activities with the children when there were Covid restrictions, but she’s unsure when those were in place as sometimes they were high and sometimes they were low. The Mother was shown a screenshot of her phone and, when asked, conceded that she has listed the Father as “Cunt” in her cellphone and that the children would FaceTime with the Father using her phone. She stated that she did so because he was abusive to her, financially, emotionally, psychologically, and physically. She stated that she apologized to him immediately after sending the screenshot to him. She testified that the children couldn’t read at the time but denied that it’s inappropriate because no one could see it. The Mother testified that she had kept a journal as the children’s behavior was odd and she needed a journal for when she had to speak to a psychologist about it. The Mother asked if she had ever sent the Father any emails she would characterize as “nice” and she stated that she had sent him emails that were “terse” and right to the point. She was asked if the Father had ever wished her well in an email and she stated, “after he called me a fat slob, have a good day, if that counts, maybe yes.” Emails between the parties dated November 26, 2020 and January 12th through January 13th of 2021 were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 10 and 12 which include pleasant exchanges between the parties. The 2020 Order was shown to the Mother and she testified that, with regard to FaceTime, the parent who does not have the children may FaceTime the children once per day on a day when they have direct contact and twice on days when they do not have direct contact which she stated was agreed to because the children were very young and it would be beneficial to the children to see each of them. She testified that the morning FaceTime calls are typically initiated in the car on the way to school which is across from her house and that it takes two minutes to get to school. She testified that she has an internet connective device in her car and stated that she is unable to initiate the FaceTime calls from home because she lets the children sleep later, she needs to feed them breakfast and get the kids dressed and doesn’t want to be on camera during those activities and it’s a “little bit of a hustle” in the mornings. She testified that it’s difficult to initiate a FaceTime call while they’re eating breakfast and watching TV and wouldn’t be paying attention to the Father whereas in the car its direct contact with no distractions. She testified that its longer than a two minute call, that she’s driving during these FaceTimes and can overhear the “good mornings.” The Mother testified that when she has FaceTime with the children she doesn’t “prefer” more than a two-minute call, she’s hung up before two minutes because the children are “visibly uncomfortable” and she doesn’t want to “torture them” by keeping them on the phone so she says “I love you” and lets them hang up. She testified that the children don’t act like themselves and she doesn’t want them to feel compelled to behave a certain way or worry about getting in trouble, so she keeps the calls brief. She testified that during the calls the children are constantly looking back at the Father, that she has asked for privacy during the calls and the Father doesn’t allow it. The Mother testified that there is no privacy during the car FaceTime calls in the morning but that that’s the second call of the day. The Mother was asked about an appearance in court on August 12, 2022, and she recalled requesting a narrower timeframe for the FaceTime calls. She testified that her understanding was that between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. they would have to avail themselves of FaceTime but that calls could be made outside of that timeframe and that there is no timeframe in the 2020 Order. Upon inquiry the Mother agreed that, pursuant to directives from the August 12, 2022 court date, the morning calls were to take place between 7:00 and 7:30 but that the calls could be made outside that timeframe. She testified that she further understood that the evening hours were 6:30 to 7:00 but calls could be made outside the timeframe, and on weekends calls would be between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. but could be made outside the timeframe. On a weekday morning, the Mother testified that when the children are with her the Father usually calls between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. and that she sometimes doesn’t answer but those calls are “far and few in between” and she immediately explains to the Father what happened and why, and it’s never been on purpose. She stated that she typically returns those calls from the car, and that there are times that she’s left her phone at home. She testified that the Father has requested additional time for the morning calls, but that the “contract” says the calls are to be brief. An Our Family Wizard message sent from the Father to the Mother on October 18, 2022 at 8:04 a.m. was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 13. The Father requests in the message to have FaceTime calls not take place in the car as the calls are rushed and suggests that the Mother is doing so intentionally to keep the calls short. He further requested that the calls take place during breakfast. The Mother testified that conversations in the morning are “a lot” and that the evening phone calls last at least ten minutes. The Mother stated that the children wake up between 6:45 and 7:15 and that school starts at 8:50 but she drops them off earlier than that because she works. She testified that she has responded to text messages from the Father requesting that FaceTime calls not be conducted in the car, and a copy of an email exchange between the parties that began on December 10, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 14. The Mother has responded to the Father’s request two days later stating “Brian enough with these emails u spoke with the kids. I think our communication should be limited, truly. Stop this, You spoke with the kids.” She stated that she responded to him two days later because he sends an exuberant amount of emails and tries to “set me up and say I haven’t spoken to the kids, so I have to respond to emails because they will be used against me.” She testified that her understanding of the court’s order regarding FaceTime calls was that “we were to avail ourselves to that time if we were not available after” and listed the various activities that she does with the children prior to them being available to take the calls and stated that there are never interruptions during the children’s homework time, which she also refers to as “storytime.” A second email chain spanning December 11, 2023 to December 15, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 15. In a December 11, 2023 email, the Father asked whether she wanted to designate a different time for FaceTime calls, and the Mother responded that, in essence, the Father should be flexible to which he responded stating that consistency is needed. The Mother testified that on a school night the children go to bed anywhere from 7:30 to 8:30 and this depends on the homework they have, and that they do their homework when they get home which is typically 5:15. She testified that homework is also part of what they do at aftercare. She stated that Brian’s homework lasts 15 to 25 minutes, and Eva’s takes longer, 35 to 40 minutes. Between the two children it takes more than an hour. When the Father calls and she does not answer the call he calls again, which she states happens repeatedly and can be for a period of hours. The Mother was asked about December 21, 2023. She testified that she missed a call from the Father beginning at 6:34 p.m. and that she called the Father at 9:57 p.m. and stated that same was an “outlier.” She testified that she had planned a “mini outing” that day, that she had booked a hotel room in Islandia to take the children swimming, that they were accompanied by her mother and that she was ill that day but did not cancel. She testified that she picked the children up at the “typical time”, 4:30 to 5:00 and that the Father had a FaceTime call later that evening. The Mother testified that on the way to Islandia she did not place a FaceTime call because “If I called from the car that would have been a violation email. It would have been bad either way. I don’t know what to do at that point anymore.” She testified that when she was asleep that evening, as she wasn’t feeling well, that the Father had sent a text message to her mother indicating that “it’s an emergency, that he was concerned about my son’s health or was worried about him or something to that effect” so she asked her mother to FaceTime him as her phone was dead. The Mother testified about December 29, 2023, that this was not a school night as it was during the school break. An exchange between the parties on Our Family Wizard from December 29, 2023 through January 1, 2024 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 21. The Mother had sent a message to the Father on December 29, 2023 at 7:22 p.m. to let him know that she and the children had fallen asleep on the couch and that she would not wake them up for a FaceTime call and he responded “That’s hard to believe. They never fall asleep this early at my house and lately you haven’t been returning my FT calls until well after 9pm. Now they are sleeping at 7:22.” The Father further inquired whether the children were sleeping at 6:39 when he placed his first call and that she did not respond until January 1st at 7:00 p.m. The Mother testified that she had woken the children up for FaceTime in the past but that she doesn’t feel it’s fair to the children. The Mother testified that she does not call the children in the morning when they are with Father and she believes it would be better for her to have times when they can speak to her when the Father is not present. She stated that the evening calls during her parenting time are typically picked up in the kitchen and she testified that she leaves the room. She stated that she is unable to give the same privacy for the morning phone calls due to the time constraints getting the children to school. She testified that she has stopped calling the children when they are with the Father and that she doesn’t call them often since she “started seeing what was happening with them.” She states that she selfishly wants to call them but chooses not to as she states that “I’d rather my children not be uncomfortable and be subjected to listening to directives from [Father], who does not treat me kindly, and I’d rather spare them that misery.” The Mother testified that she was taken out of town for Mother’s Day by her boyfriend in 2022, that they went to the Hamptons and the children were with the Father and his family. She stated that she was in tough spot because the reservations were non-refundable, and her boyfriend had chosen the dates based on the parties’ alternating weekends as he was unaware that their stipulation gave her Mother’s Day with the children every year. She testified that she objected to the children going to summer camp because she’s a school guidance counselor and doesn’t work during the summer, that they were going to be in Puerto Rico for a “long stretch of time” during the camp weeks, and that she is unable to afford summer camp. The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement Re: Child Support dated May 12, 2020 (hereinafter the “2020 Stipulation”) was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 23. The Mother read a portion of same which states that “As part of childcare as well as summer enrichment programs, the parties agree that the children shall attend a mutually agreed upon summer camp until such time as the parties mutually agree that a child need not be enrolled in summer camp. The parties shall mutually agree on any choice of summer camp before enrolling a child in summer camp.” The Mother stated that the parties did not mutually agree on any summer camp, and that the Father had picked a summer camp and enrolled the children anyway and that she did not propose any other camp options as she was unable to afford same. During the summer, the Mother testified that she and the children went to Puerto Rico for ten or eleven days, that they’re interested in science so they looked at the moon by telescope, and that they examined rain water in microscopes. She stated that the trip to Puerto Rico was paid for by herself and her mother, that she paid $100 total toward the trip. Her mother has a house in Puerto Rico, so she testified that she did not pay for going out to dinner while there, and she contributed $100 toward airfare. The Mother testified that the Father currently owes her “several thousand” dollars in child support as “he never reimburses me” and that he has been “deducting my child support.” She testified that she has filed a child support violation petition before and needs to refile. She stated that she thinks spending time with family is more important than summer camp and that they have a lot of family and friends they want to get together with during the summer. With respect to extracurricular activities the Mother testified that she has agreed to extracurriculars for Brian, though she has not enrolled him herself as the Father makes “three or four times” more money than she does and she is unable to front the money. She stated that she has also agreed to extracurricular activities for Eva and but has not enrolled her herself. She testified that she paid her pro rata share of the costs until she went into foreclosure. She stated that she suggested swimming and soccer for both children, and the Father enrolled them in swimming which is close to her home. She testified that her home went into foreclosure over the summer that just passed, and it was “a big financial issue with enrolling anyone.” The Mother stated that she is employed by the New York City Department of Education for the past 14 years. She stated that her monthly mortgage payment is $2,800, and that the Father pays $2,500 per month when he’s not deducting money for activities that she’s indicated she’s unable to pay for and that she’s not being reimbursed by the Father for his pro rata share of “doctor visits, dental visits, eyeglasses” for the past two years “to financially strangle me I am sure.” The Mother testified that Brian was enrolled in T-ball in 2021, that she did not enroll him but that she did pay her share. She stated that she went to a few of the games and that she had asked the Father to alternate attending Brian’s games and that he refused her request. The Mother testified that the Father has not reimbursed her for one thing for two years. She conceded that she has not always paid her 25 percent when the Father has requested reimbursement and that “If it was a day late, it was a violation email.” She testified that it was the parties’ intention at the time of the 2020 Stipulation to enroll the children in age-appropriate activities but that she was “financially secure” then whereas now her credit cards are “maxed out” in part because she’s not being reimbursed by the Father. The Mother testified that, according to the 2020 Order, the children may be enrolled in up to two activities at any time to be mutually agreed upon but that she did not offer less expensive options as she is unable to afford to contribute to them. She testified that the Father then enrolls the children in sports and “he’ll stop payment on child support. He removed $700 from child support to pay for activities that I did not agree to. Then another time, he removed 800 or 600, I’m not exactly sure.” She testified that when Eva was three or six months old she was enrolled in dance classes at Christ the King in Queens. She testified that she asked the Father to assist in enrolling the children in swimming and soccer, and that he had enrolled them in swimming but then took them out, that she asked him to put them back in and he said no. She stated that when the Father asked to enroll Brian in T-ball she agreed and paid her pro rata share. The Mother testified that the Father enrolled Brian in baseball in Farmingdale in 2022. She testified that she took him to one game, that she knows Brian enjoys playing baseball and she wants him to play. She further testified that she was prevented from going to Brian’s games because “[Father] would immediately insult me in an email calling me embarrassing if I made a mistake, shame me as a mom for not wanting to go to the games, because if I do go, the exchanges in front of my children are unhealthy. He’ll call me names right in front of them, as he did in June. If I bring him with a bat, it’s a miniature bat, it’s not good enough. If I didn’t dress him with his pants, it’s stupid on my part, I’m stupid, irresponsible. That’s why.” She stated “Repeatedly I was mocked for embarrassing my children if I would be five minutes late. You know he would be there to document it, and he actually said, ‘I’m documenting your terrible parenting,’” that the Father emailed her to say “how I was extremely wrong for sitting with my daughter, how I should say hello, and walk away.” She stated, “It’s just obvious that my presence is not welcome there.” The Mother testified that when she’s late for one of Brian’s games “It’s documentation nonstop about, you know, how terrible of a mom I am” and that when she does not attend the games the reaction she gets from the Father is “I’m a horrible mom, I’m disgusting, I’m pathetic, I’m a loser, every mom is there but me, every mom would be proud except for me, how could you want to miss these games, but even though I made it clear I don’t feel safe.” She testified that he has verbally insulted her at these events 15 to 17 times and this has been happening since 2020. She testified that she doesn’t want the children to think that’s normal behavior. The Mother testified that the Father enrolled Eva in gymnastics in 2023, and enrolled Brian in basketball in Massapequa in 2022 several times. She stated that she’s “pretty sure” she took Brian to games in Massapequa when it was her weekend, but that “after the last time, I refused to attend any further.” She testified that there were times when the Father would offer to pick them up for games and she agreed. She also testified that Brian missed some games on her weekends and that the Father had provided her the schedule “late, very late, like I have a game tomorrow late.” She stated that she did not reach out to the league to find out the schedule although she learned the name of the league “sometime in 2022.” She testified that Brian’s activities such as baseball and basketball take place on weekends and that during her alternate weekends the Father expects her to go to the games or meet him to exchange Brian so the Father can take him and that the games are all five minutes from the Father’s house. She stated that these events are “45 minutes on a good day” away from her house. The Mother testified that the games used to be at 5:30 which makes them impossible for her to attend and that she sent the Father a screenshot of a schedule from the same league but a different time and he refused. The Mother testified that instead the Father ridiculed her about being a horrible mom and makes comments during his FaceTime with the children. She testified that the children were enrolled in swimming in East Rockaway which is her neighborhood and that she attended every single swimming class except two. She stated that there were times she didn’t take the children to swimming including once when they had an appointment with Dr. Favaro and another time when she had gotten lost. She testified that the Father also enrolled Eva in dance class five minutes from his house, but that Eva only missed two dance classes during her parenting time. She testified that the Father also enrolled Eva in gymnastics five minutes from his house and that she had no input in the enrollment. She stated that she does not take Eva to gymnastics during her parenting time and agreed, upon inquiry, that she feels it’s better for the children to miss activities than to go and there to be “abusive interaction.” An email communication between the parties dated from December 5, 2023 to December 8, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 24. The Father inquired in that communication on December 5th whether the Mother would be taking Brian to his basketball game on Saturday, and again on December 7th. The Mother responded on December 7th stating “you’re consistently impeding on my parental time. Your behavior in front of the kids is scary and aggressive. It’s not healthy for them to witness.” She testified that the Father inquired again, she did not respond, and Brian did not attend the basketball game on December 8th. When asked why she did not respond sooner, the Mother testified that the Father “bombards by inbox” and that it could have been a time “where he sent over ten, 15 emails” that he “sends an insane amount of emails. It doesn’t stop.” An email exchange dated December 30, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 25. Therein the Father provides “the rest of Brian’s basketball schedule.” The Father notes in his email that three of four games fall on the Mother’s weekends and offered to bring Brian to the games. The Mother testified that she did not take Brian to the game on January 6th and that she was prevented from doing so because “[The Father's] behavior in front of the children is always aggressive, as is his family as of recent.” She states that both the Father’s mother and his wife are aggressive and that his wife “was taunting me the day of June 9th, when [Father] was repeatedly telling me to shut my mouth and telling me that I look like trash.” When asked if she limits her interactions with the children the Mother testified that “To help save them and protect them, yes. I will do anything for my children to protect them.” She testified that she had asked the Father to enroll Brian in soccer in East Rockaway many times and he said no. The Mother testified that in her working capacity she does not engage in therapy for students as she’s not a licensed therapist and not a licensed psychologist but that she has referred students to therapy and believes in therapy herself. She stated that she works in Ridgewood which is approximately an hour and a half drive from East Rockaway and that she needs to leave by 7:50 to 8:05 to get to work on time so she wakes the children up to get ready between 6:50 and 7:00 and drops them off anytime between 7:45 and 8:15. She stated that she finishes work at 3:45 but that the school has made accommodations for her this year such that she works through lunch and leaves at 3:05 on the days she has the children. She testified that Brian is dismissed at 2:50 and Eva is dismissed at 2:45 or 2:40 and that the children go to an after-school program which is located in their school where they have assisted homework time and free play, but that they review everything at home and they do half the homework, sometimes the whole homework, at home. The Mother denied stating that Brian’s basketball “impedes on my time” but agreed that it does affect her time with the children. The Mother testified that she can’t go to the children’s games because its “a liability for everyone.” She stated that she doesn’t think it’s a good idea for her to take Brian to basketball games because of the Father’s behavior which she states is not healthy for the children. She testified that she attended a dance recital without issue the day after there had been an issue at basketball. She further testified that she attended Brian’s kindergarten graduation on June 20th and Eva’s pre-K graduation on June 23rd without incident. She stated that she attends their activities when she feels safe, when the events are crowded and that less than 30 people attend Brian’s basketball games. She testified that she’s tried sitting with the parents from the other team and that “didn’t work” and that the Father denied her request to alternate games. The Mother testified that the “baseball game incident” occurred on June 9, 2023 and that she had videotaped the Father’s wife. She testified that she did so for her safety, that she showed the video to her lawyer and to CPS, and she did not show the video to the children. She stated that Eva had wanted to say hello to Cathy and the baby and the Mother testified that “I told Cathy, just so you know, if there is any abuse happening and you’re a party to it, your children can be taken away from you.” The Mother testified that she made that statement because it had come to her attention that the children were being “forced” to call the Father’s wife “Mommy” and the children were upset about it. The Mother stated that she had addressed that issue with the Father several times and was ignored. When asked why she did not tell the Father’s wife that she did not wish for her to be addressed as Mommy and instead told her that certain situations can lead to her children being taken away the Mother stated, “I informed her of the law, yes.” The Mother testified that on Sunday June 11th, two days later, that she chose not to bring Brian to his all-star game and did not permit the Father to bring him. She testified that she took Eva to her dance recital on June 10th and the Father’s family was there and nothing bad happened that day “in the mass crowd.” She testified that prior to June 9, 2023 she had never had an altercation with Cathy. The Mother was asked about a FaceTime call on April 1, 2022 between the children and the Father. She testified that she recalled Cathy coming on the call to say hello the children. The Mother denied terminating the call immediately after Cathy said hello but stated that the Father then started profusely apologizing for the Mother’s rude behavior, etc. so she then terminated the call. She testified that the children’s FaceTime calls are supposed to be private, but she overheard the conversation. She stated that she gave them privacy by stepping into the next room and that the children were too small to be left alone in her bedroom or their bedroom. She testified that Brian, at three years old, was never left alone in a room. She denied calling back to yell at Cathy. She stated that she called back to speak to the Father and sent the children away from her and told him that she pretends for the children that he’s normal and the least he could do was apologize and not treat her badly in front of the children. The Mother testified that there was a recent upsetting incident where Eva’s nails had been painted red and that she’s Sicilian and Puerto Rican and her culture doesn’t believe in red nail polish for little girls. The Mother testified that she removed the polish because “I don’t really believe in bringing a four year old at the time when she started with that, now a five year old, to a nail salon, just exposure to all kinds of like unhealthy diseases that she can catch, so I’m not a fan of that, so I wouldn’t even want to bring her myself.” She testified that there was a time that she had gotten her own nails done and Eva “fell in love with them” and asked to have gems put on her nails, so she did so and then at the Father’s house the gems were “picked off” and he sent her “a nasty email” wherein he stated that “I should not impose my trashy, classless lifestyle on my — on my daughter.” She testified that after the gems were removed “they went and redid them at the nail salon.” She stated that there is no conflict as long as Eva’s nails are not red as red nail polish is “a real cultural problem.” An email exchange between the parties dated December 19, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 27. In that exchange the Mother set forth concerns about the nail polish noting that its dangerous and “devoid of class” and against her culture and went on to insult Cathy. The Mother’s email continued with a discussion of the children calling Cathy “Gioia” and the Mother’s objections to same. The Mother testified that “Gioia” in Sicilian is means “the light of my life the love of my life” that it’s above a parent and something that an older person might use to refer to their child. She testified that she does not encourage the children to call any of her family members Gioia. The Mother testified that she wants what’s best for the children and agreed, upon inquiry, that that would include a good relationship with Cathy and to think highly of her “if they’re not hurting my children.” The Mother testified that children went to school at Christ the King for the 2021-2022 school year, and 2020 as well and that they were enrolled there by mutual agreement. The Mother testified that there was a “back to school night” for Brian in September of 2022 at the Rhame school which she attended virtually. She testified that she attended the 2023 back to school night virtually, which she says she chose to do to avoid interaction with the Father and/or his wife. She stated that she had met the other parents at the orientation. The Mother testified that she was unable to attend Brian’s Halloween parade in 2022 or the Thanksgiving parade after having been called into the office by her principal to discuss her absences and their impact on her position. The Mother testified that Eva was enrolled at Tutor Time in 2022 and that she was unable to attend a Halloween event or a gingerbread house event in December 2022 due to her work absences. The Mother testified that Rhame Avenue has a “partial” universal pre-K program, but the hours were from 9:00-12:00 and she does not work from home so the program didn’t work for her work hours. She testified that she never enrolled Eva in Tutor Time with the last name D’Aguanno and she has proof of same. She conceded, upon inquiry, that she had made a mistake in the paperwork regarding the Father’s email address and she did not contact Tutor Time as she assumed the Father had corrected it as he caught the error. The Mother testified that she has not discussed the Father’s behavior with anyone at the school unless it was brought to her attention. The Mother testified that she is prescribed Wellbutrin for anxiety and Xanax as needed for anxiety by her primary care physician Dr. Kvetny. She stated that she last took Wellbutrin that morning and last took Xanax on Saturday, two days ago but has not taken any other medication since 2020. She testified that she “heard” the Father is not taking his medication. The Mother testified that she has not discussed discipline of the children with the Father. She testified that she has “pow-pow’d” the children and spanked them but did not recall when. She stated that she primarily takes away toys or puts them in timeout but that in August of 2022, she ripped up a baseball card that belonged to Brian in front of him and his face changed, and he didn’t look happy. The Mother testified that in 2019 she was not allowed overnight visitation with the children when she was enrolled in anger management. She stated that that was the last time she didn’t have overnight visitation. The Mother testified that the Father “badgers” her about Eva getting her hair cut and that she told the Father she’d wait until Eva turned five “just to stop the nonstop emails about it.” The Mother testified that “I feel that it’s oddly controlling that he is obsessed, and his wife just continues harping about the haircut” and that “culturally women have long hair in my culture” and that she wants Eva’s hair long. When asked whether anything was preventing the Father from attending a haircut for Eva, she testified that other than the constant verbal abuse in public places there’s nothing preventing it and that she would permit the Father to attend Eva’s first haircut “if it was in the contract” but if there was a “safety concern” and it wasn’t in the contract then no. An email conversation between the parties from July of 2020 and continuing in March of 2021 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 31. The Mother testified that the conversation occurred during Covid and involved Eva’s christening. The Father responded to her on March 15, 2021 asking to discuss it and stating that he wanted Eva to be christened before she turned three years old which was, at that point, 6 ½ months away. She testified that Brian had been baptized at a church in Middle Village, she did not recall whether it was a Roman Catholic Church. She stated that the parties had previously discussed Eva getting baptized. Another email exchange between the parties dated August 11, 2021 pertaining to the christening was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 32. In the exchange, the Mother provided the information about the christening and church requirements and the Father noted that the chosen date was a Thursday and asked if there were available Saturdays, the Mother provided Saturday dates and they agreed on October 31st at 1:00. The Mother testified that Eva was baptized at St. Raymond’s, but she did not recall whether it was a Roman Catholic church. She testified that she chose Eva’s godparents, who were her best friends, and that the Father had chosen Brian’s godparents and there were no issues between the parties in that regard. A series of Our Family Wizard messages between the parties dated August 14, 2023 through September 15, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 33. In the messages, the parties discuss the first day of school that year and the Father sent a link for religious education at St. Raymond’s and later inquires whether the Mother has signed Brian up for religious education. The Mother responded by stating she did not intend to enroll him and asked if he was religious, to which the Father responded that he was raised Catholic and wanted them enrolled and that he’d enroll them. The Mother responded with an objection noting that religion is a major life decision and that the Father couldn’t enroll Brian unilaterally. When asked about the representations made during the children’s baptisms regarding continuing in the Catholic faith, she testified that that doesn’t necessarily mean religious education. She testified that she was not sure if they require religious education to receive communion, but when asked about confirmation she testified that you do need religious education for both ceremonies. The Mother testified that she was the one that decided they were not agreeing to enroll the children in religion but that she never said the children would not be raised Catholic and that she has read the Bible with the children but not engaged them in any formal religious education. She testified that she attended church with the Father a few times, once on Long Island and possibly once in Queens which she believes were Catholic churches. When asked if anything prevented her from engaging the children in religious education the Mother testified that “[Father] tells my children to lie and I think that its gravely confusing and abusive to take them to a church where they’re told not to lie. I think I had to put a pause on that…If [Father] is bringing my children to a church where they’re told not to lie and [Father] and his family tell my children to lie I think that’s extremely psychologically confusing and abusive to my children.” She stated that she knows for a fact that the Father and his family are telling the children to lie and that she has kept them out of religious education to protect them. Specifically, she states that the children are told to say “That I punched my son in the throat. That I left bruises on my son. That I tell my children to lie. That I don’t bathe them. That I don’t clean them. That I don’t allow them to have fun in my home. I don’t allow them to play games. I don’t allow any of this. I let them sleep on the floor. I don’t feed them. Yes. These are all the insane things I’m being told.” She testified that she tells the children to tell the truth at all times and has never told them to lie. The Mother was asked to review the 2020 Order and testified that in her opinion she complies with all aspects of the agreement. When asked about switching the children’s pediatrician from a provider in Glendale to a provider in Lynbrook, she testified that the Father had asked her why the children were still seeing a pediatrician in Glendale when she lived in Nassau and she took that to mean she should switch doctors. She stated that this obviated the need to further consult with the Father, and that she was afraid if she didn’t get a doctor in Nassau it would be another violation. The Mother testified that she then “had to” switch doctors from Lynbrook to East Rockaway, and that she did not discuss this with the Father prior to scheduling an appointment. The Mother testified that the Father had “confronted” the doctor in Lynbrook and that the doctor was uncomfortable and refused to provide a “write-up” from a visit after speaking with him. The Mother testified that the children see a pediatric dentist and that “as a residential parent” she chose the dentist. The Mother testified that she never asked the Father if he wanted input in choosing a dentist and that she doesn’t see an issue, that if he had a problem she would have switched the dentist. The Mother testified that the children have been in therapy with various providers. She stated that Ms. Mullins was chosen by her, there was another provider whose name she did not recall, and they mutually agreed upon another provider. She testified that the Father chose Joanna Freda but that they’re no longer seeing her, and she did not know why. According to the Mother, October 21, 2023 was the last time they saw her, that the Father went to speak to the therapists and after that they terminated therapy. The Mother testified that the children are exchanged at a TD Bank in Merrick as, pursuant to the 2020 Order they were to meet at a mutually convenient location. The Mother testified that the Father “popped up” at her house on Easter after looking up her confidential address, that he “popped up” at dance when he could have watched her on a monitor from his home and that he “popped up” at swimming. The Mother testified that when he “pops up” it’s to “torture me” for being a minute late or to insult her. She stated that she threatened to have the Father arrested on Easter, that she was not assaulted that day, but it was very scary to her that he showed up given the parties’ “DV history.” The Mother testified that the Father’s mother sent a letter to her house and that letting her know they knew address was “robbing me of my peace” and that she considered it threatening. She stated that the Father has emailed her several times saying he knows where she lives and mocking the size of her house. An email exchange between the parties dated January 28, 2021 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 34. In the email from the Father to the Mother he noted that although she had “taken joy” in keeping her address confidential that he had Googled her address and ascertained same, and then congratulated her on the purchase. The Mother testified that she considered the email scary because he had looked up her address that she had wished to conceal. When asked why, though she claimed to be fearful, she chose to go outside the house and open the rear passenger door and take the children out, she stated that “anybody knows that if a man comes to your door they can just push you in and hurt you or whatever so it’s not safe for a lady to have a door open with a male there” so that it was safer for her to go get the children. She testified that she filed a Family Offense petition not immediately thereafter but later, which was ultimately dismissed. The Mother testified that the children ride in booster seats currently, and each party has their own. She testified that she does not physically remove the children from the car. She testified that there have been problems in the bank parking lot “too many times to remember” but she has not called the police as she tries to avoid calling the police unless she has to. Regarding curbside exchanges, the Mother testified that she was arrested because the Father saw her with a male. The Mother stated that her mother lives in Howard Beach and helps her with the children sometimes, though she spends significant times in Puerto Rico, and that both grandmothers are listed as emergency contact in addition to the parents for school purposes. She testified that her father lives in Middle Village along with her brother and sister. She testified that when she got Covid she asked the Father to take the kids and he did without a problem for at least five days but she wasn’t sure how long. She stated that her mother was not around at the time and that she did not ask her siblings or father to watch the children at that time. Regarding the neglect petitions, the Mother was asked if she was found to have neglected the children and she stated that the petition was “faulty” and that she had “requested to the Judge to please have it amended, and she refused to do so.” She testified that she took the same disposition as the Father as she had wanted it to be over as soon as possible. The Mother testified that, with respect to the incident involving the bruising to Brian’s knees, Saturday June 4th was the first time she withheld the children from the Father which she stated was “in good faith.” She testified that she noticed the bruises immediately upon picking the children up from school on Thursday as Brian was wearing shorts and that the bruises “looked like hands, like a literal hand wrapped around the inner part of his thigh. There were bruising on the outside of his leg, bruising on his thighs that were not consistent with a typical toddler fall.” She did not ask the Father what had happened. She stated that she could not recall whether the children went to school on Friday “If I had work, they did, I don’t recall.” She testified that she was contacted by someone from CPS, possibly that Friday. The Mother was asked if she “flagged” the bruises to anyone at the children’s school and she stated that she had told the school nurse. She testified that before she went to court for help, she took Brian to the pediatrician, Dr. Roa at Glendale Pediatrics, and that they then went to the emergency room on the doctor’s request. She testified that she did not inform the Father of same “for safety reasons” and that if she had sent the Father a message about taking Brian to the pediatrician “I’d be putting my child in danger, and myself.” She stated that there are “Victim Laws” that state that abuse concerns trump court orders. She further testified that “for safety reasons for any victim, they should not have to be placed near their abuser when things are being investigated which is why I asked the Court to investigate.” She testified that she emailed the Father about the incident on Saturday June 4th, and the email was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 35. The Mother read a portion of the email into the record including “I will not be dropping the kids off to you today…the hospital felt the bruising was suspicious. The caseworker informed me at the hospital that they were opening a case based off of how the bruising looked. Until I hear back from one of them I do not feel comfortable releasing the kids to you.” The exhibit included a response from the Father wherein he asks why he was not informed about the doctor visit and requests all information pertaining thereto as well as the caseworker contact information for CPS. The Father, in the email, further stated that “I am driving to our exchange location now to pick up the children at 10am pursuant to our Custody and Visitation Order. Please comply with the court order or I will be forced to file a police report against you as well as a new Family Court petition.” The Mother testified that Eva had no bruises at the time but that she did not feel comfortable with the Father having any visitation “if that’s what he did to my son.” The Mother stated that she did not go to the police about this allegation. The Mother testified that she came to Court on Tuesday June 7th, not Monday June 6th because “June is a very hectic time. I was probably certifying seniors, which is a nightmare as a Guidance Counselor.” She testified that she was given temporary custody of the children while the matter was investigated. Following that incident, the Mother testified that she could not recall whether the Father had the children for Father’s Day weekend. She testified that she filed a Family Offense petition on Tuesday June 21st seeking an Order of Protection. The Mother testified that she had Covid in September of 2022 and that the symptoms lasted for “quite a long time” and that during that time she asked the Father to take the children for a period of time. She testified that in October of 2022 there were allegations of another punch and that she went to the police and filed a police report alleging that the Father had pushed Brian down on the floor by his throat. There are no pictures from this incident. The Mother testified that she took Brian to First Med and they checked his throat and entire body. She testified that the Father was not arrested because she requested that the police officers not arrest him and instead told the police “I just want to keep my children safe, and I’d like to pursue an Order of Protection.”. She testified that Brian was in therapy at Expressive Connections with Christina DiBernardo at the time but that that therapy ended in October of 2022 “Illegally when [Father] spoke to them” and that she believes every time he gets involved with a provider “they want nothing to do with us.” The Mother testified that in October of 2022, after the second punch allegation, she did not allow the Father’s parenting time during the first weekend of October. She testified that supervised visitation was put back in place after that at some point. She testified that, at the time of this allegation, Brian was about 40 pounds, the Father weighed “maybe 300, who knows” and that Brian had no visible injury following either punching incident. The Mother was asked if the Father had picked the children up on Tuesday June 28th and she said that he had. She was then asked if on Wednesday June 29th she said that the Father had punched Brian in the throat and she responded “I didn’t say that, I was told that.” She testified that when she picked Brian up from school she was informed that he had thrown up and that Eva was crying in the car, Brian was also in tears, and that this was when she learned about the alleged punching incident. She testified that Brian did not have any physical injuries that she noticed, but that she took pictures of his neck because, although she stated there were no bruises, “there might have been something that I didn’t see.” The Mother testified that she took Brian to the pediatrician but did not take him to the emergency room because, when asked if his throat hurt Brian said no. She testified that she did not take him to the doctor until that Saturday. The Mother testified that she took the children to the police precinct on Friday July 1st, the next day, and Brian met with two forensic interviewers at the Safe Center. The Mother stated that she was not present during the interviews with either Brian or Eva. She testified that Brian was four years old at the time as it occurred in 2022. The Mother testified that she could not recall whether the Father was supposed to have parenting time on Saturday July 2nd or whether she notified him that he was not going to have parenting time as “I felt like I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.” The Mother testified that she has a therapist she’s been seeing for eight years. Email correspondence between the parties from Saturday July 2nd at 10:32 a.m. through July 4th at 5:42 p.m. was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 38. The Mother testified that the Father sent her an email on July 4th at 1:31 p.m. noting that he was entitled to parenting time that evening, and she responded at 5:42 p.m. stating “Pursuant to the fact that you were arrested for abusing our son physically, mentally and emotionally, I do not feel safe letting them be in your care unsupervised. Allow the Courts to handle this matter.” The Mother testified that she was aware that the criminal courts had not issued any order of protection at that time. She testified that she returned to Family Court on July 5th after not receiving an order of protection from the criminal court because “It was an injustice to my son, so I had to do everything that I could do as his parent to protect my child, I would exhaust every possibility.” She testified that her Family Court petition contained the same allegations as those brought up in District Court on the criminal matter. The Mother testified that she was served with an Order to Show Cause on July 11th directing her to comply with a custody order, but she’s “not exactly sure” that she complied. She testified that the Father had supervised visitation throughout that summer supervised by his mother. When asked about the outcome of the criminal matter she stated “My children are unswearable, so they were not able to pursue the criminal matter.” The Mother testified that she is not aware of any admission or proof of abuse or neglect finding as a result of the punching incident. The Mother testified that she recalled Dr. Favaro testifying that “both parents were culpable for influencing their children.” She stated that she’s not culpable because she never told the children to lie and she’s not culpable for influencing the children whatsoever, “in any way, shape, or form.” When asked if she has any faults as a mother, the Mother testified “A hundred percent,” that “I don’t react the best way all the time…I cry in front of them which is not healthy…That time that I ripped up the baseball card, the only time I’ve overreacted.” Regarding her statements about withholding the children from the Father in “good faith” the Mother testified that “I believe good faith is a term that is — it’s an umbrella term that the Court uses.” When asked what she would think if the Father chose to act in good faith contrary to a court order she testified that “I would respect that, and I would really want to understand what he was thinking, and I would try to rectify that in any way, shape, or form.” When asked if it was correct that the Father had never stopped her from seeing the children the Mother stated “I’m not an abuser that’s why.” When the court inquired as to why the Mother feels the way the Father loves and cares for the children is not healthy, the Mother testified that “Not everybody loves and cares in the same way. I really from what I’m understanding from what I’m seeing from my children, it doesn’t seem like they’re being loved in the same way. It seems like I am to be out of the picture of their lives, like they’re made to dislike me, not — they’re made to behave certain ways. They’re thrown in the middle of things, the obvious bruising, and the abuse has come to my attention through my children, and other authorities. That’s not the right way of loving someone, and at the end of the day, parents should, even if they’re separated, be respectful towards one another especially in front of the children. [Father] has repeatedly insulted me in front of the children over the course of years. It’s not healthy, it’s not appropriate, and it’s not a good way to love.” When asked by the Court if she does any of those things, the Mother simply replied “No.” With respect to Dr. Favaro’s recommendation of parallel parenting the Mother testified that “I do not think parallel parenting is working out. Any attempts that I make, it’s — [Father] finds every single reason to argue, and if there is no reason, he will fabricate a reason.” She stated that she’s tried to impose parallel parenting by not going to the Father for every little thing and instead asking the teacher regarding homework. She testified that she was told by Eva’s teacher, regarding Eva’s bunny backpack, that “[Father] consulted with his wife, and they spoke to my — my child, and it was determined by the parents, I guess, that’s how it made it seem, the two parents agreed that this was a toy and not to be used as a book bag.” She testified that the “two parents” referred to were the Father and his wife and she was not a part of that conversation. Regarding the pickup and dropoff at TD Bank, the Mother stated that “It’s just not healthy for the children at all to be exchanged at a bank” and that it would make more sense for the parent whose weekend it is to pick the children up Friday from school instead of Saturday morning to avoid the face-to-face exchanges. When asked about the Father’s arrest on July 2, 2022 which occurred at her home and the impact on the children the Mother testified that “I think it’s very daunting. I think they’ve not been happy when they see police officers in the past because of so much police presence.” She testified that she tries to avoid police contact except in an emergency. She stated that she is aware the Father has cameras in his house because she’s seen them during FaceTime calls and that she has no cameras in her house. The Mother was asked if she and the Father get along in any aspect of their co-parenting and she said they have not gotten along, that she doesn’t pick fights with the Father but that “it just doesn’t stop with [Father].” She testified that the Father comments on her appearance, intellect and parenting skills “all the time” and that “he tries to change the perception of what people think of me, that are involved with my children, or even mutual friends” and that he has made retaliatory accusations about her to CPS. The Mother’s 2022 Family Offense was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, from which she read: “My children have exhibited changes in their personalities that are concerning. My daughter cries excessively and my son has become withdrawn, angry, aggressive and despondent.” She stated that she was seeking therapeutic services for the children and that the children are currently exhibiting the same signs “but worse” now. She testified that Brian has demonstrated “excessive crying, worry” and “a lot of extremely aggressive self-injurious behaviors, like punching himself in the face when he gets upset, or on the side of the head.” The Mother testified that she attended a basketball game where both Brian and Eva were present in November of 2022. She stated that Brian was playing on the basketball court, and she sat next to Eva who was seated next to the Father’s grandfather, and the paternal grandmother sat on her other side. She testified that she was being “glared at” by the grandfather and paternal grandmother and at one point she and Eva went to sit on the other side. She stated that during halftime she went to get snacks from her car which was parked right in front of the double doors and the paternal grandmother followed behind her screaming, threatening to call the police. She stated that she was begging the grandmother to stop because Eva was right there, but it didn’t work. The Mother testified that she emailed the Father to ask his mother not to scream that she was kidnapping her child in front of the children again and in his responsive Our Family Wizard response dated November 6, 2022, entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit PP, he scolds the Mother for her behavior and didn’t address the claims regarding the paternal grandmother. A series of email exchanges dated August 14, 2022, November 14, 2022, November 9, 2022, October 12, 2022 and June 11, 2020 were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit AA through EE. In each exchange, the Mother indicates that she has placed FaceTime calls within minutes, though outside of, the “designated FaceTime window” and the Father responds by ridiculing her and denying her access. In the June 11, 2020 email he states “Going forward, if you want to FaceTime with the children when I have them it will need to be between 7:30 and 8:00 (AM and PM). You are too unreliable otherwise” and that “I have designated time windows in both the AM and PM for you to ensure compliance. What’s not fair to the children is their slob mother telling them she will call before bed and neglecting to do so repeatedly.” Additional emails dated March 10, 2022, January 11, 2023, December 23, 2022, and October 25, 2022, all of which contain similar email conversations, were entered into evidence as Respondent’s FF through II. The Mother testified that she’s not sure if she’d consider speaking with the children on FaceTime when they’re with the Father from a separate room where no one else is present because “I don’t know if any of those conditions can ever exist.” An email from the Mother to the Father dated September 21, 2022 was entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit MM wherein the Mother states “Please change Brian’s games to Monday at 545. You didn’t ask me about a time slot or a team. Brian on face time said mommy why didn’t you come to my game. So please change the time slot it is in his best interest. His age group is also Monday at 545.” The Father responded “It’s probably not possible.” An email from the Father to the Mother dated June 4, 2020 was entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit NN. The email contains a barrage of insults, referred to the clothing provided by the Mother for the children as “disgusting hand me downs anyway.” The Father stated “We’ll never coparent normally because you are a mentally ill woman in denial and I truly don’t like you as a person — you were right about that for many years. Every exchange and email/facetime with you is absolutely grueling as you genuinely make me sick. It’s a shame and hopefully it will change one day should you ever learn how to act normally like a normally functioning adult.” More emails and Our Family Wizard exchanges were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits TT through VV which date from September 13, 2021 to January 27, 2023 all of which contain various insulting tirades from the Father directed at the Mother. The Mother testified that she said no regarding religious education at the moment. She again stated that this is because the children are being told to lie and “going to church will tremendously confuse them.” The Mother testified that their pediatrician is next to the children’s school and that she informed the Father there was a new pediatrician. She testified that the children’s dentist is in Lynbrook and that she informed the Father of the new dentist after choosing the practice herself. The Mother testified that currently she has the children Monday, the Father picks them up Tuesday and drops them off Wednesday and she has them Thursday Friday and alternate weekends. She stated that the children have backpacks and that the teachers communicate through the ClassDojo app. She testified that the Father has access to ClassDojo and that the homework is not posted there, but that they can message the teacher for the assignments if needed. She stated that the children go back and forth with their backpacks midweek and that she checks their folders on her parenting time and expects the Father to check their folders on his parenting time. Regarding attendance at the children’s activities, the Mother testified that she had proposed alternating same in 2021 but that currently she believes both should be able to attend games and that in 2021 “there was a lot of things going on that were not good for the children to be witness to.” She then stated that she still feels that, due to the Father’s behavior, its best for her not to go. With respect to the Father’s morning FaceTime calls the Mother agreed, after inquiry, that its chaotic in the morning and the children are getting ready, eating breakfast and trying to get out of the house. The Mother was asked about the FaceTime calls and confirmed that there were several occasions when she called a minute or two late and wasn’t able to talk to the children and that she has stopped her FaceTime calls. She testified that “it’s miserable.” She testified that the children have no privacy at the Father’s house, there’s cameras in every room. She was asked if there was a room set up where the door was closed and the children could talk to her with no one else present if she thought that would be better, and the Mother testified that she would like to talk to the children but that she’s unsure if that would work. Regarding the exchanges of the children, the Mother stated that she feels “contactless” exchanges would be best with the parties picking up and dropping off directly to school. She testified that for holidays or school breaks she would not be amenable to the Father doing pickup and drop off at her home as she’s afraid of him. The Mother was asked about Mother’s Day 2022 and testified that she didn’t find out about the trip her boyfriend had planned until the last minute and that it was too late to change. She stated that she was unsure if she felt that it was hurtful to the children to not see her on Mother’s Day. When asked if she felt there was any way to “flip the page” and for her and the Father to be civil to one another when talking about the children she stated “I’m not sure. I’ve tried several times. Doesn’t work.” The Mother was then questioned by the Father’s attorney again on re-direct. The Mother agreed that the children are being emotionally hampered, but when asked if she believes she has emotionally hampered them she stated that “That indicates some type of causality or — so I don’t know if something indirectly I’ve to try to help them has damaged that, but I’m not — I definitely never did anything on purpose.” Regarding therapy the Mother stated that she believes the children should be in therapy and that they’ve had three prior therapists. The Mother recalled Dr. Favaro referring to the children as “superstars” and that they were being emotionally hampered by their parents’ issues and loyalty issues and conceded that she believes the children perceive the parties’ inability to communicate with each other and that it effects them. She stated that she disagrees with Dr. Favaro’s recommendation that the children don’t need therapy as she feels it’s necessary. She stated that the children saw Joanna Freda until October of 2022 and that she didn’t do anything to stop the therapy. She stated that she had asked Ms. Freda what was happening and that she had forwarded or copy/pasted all of the emails that they had. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Freda the day of the allegation that Brian was assaulted by the Father but believes she told her on another day. The Mother was asked if she believes to this day that the Father punched Brian in the throat and she testified “The forensic people believe so and I believe what they say. They’re experts, not me.” When asked if the allegation had been proven what that should mean as far as custody of the children she stated “It was proven. The Safe Center proved it.” The Mother was asked if she heard Dr. Favaro testify about having doubts about the punches to the neck and she stated “I’m not exactly sure if it was doubts about that in general or about the parents’, quote-unquote, influencing the children.” The Mother testified that she does not believe the parties have the ability to co-parent as joint custodial parents. With respect to the parties’ relationship she testified that it has always been horrible and their communication has always been very terrible. She stated that things have changed as “The abuse towards my children has gotten worse, not our relationship.” Testimony of Joanna Freda: The Father called the children’s former therapist, Joanna Freda, as his next witness. Ms. Freda testified that she has been employed by Expressive Connections Mental Health Counseling providing clinical mental health counseling for two years and three months. She testified that she worked with the subject children Brian and Eva from September to October of 2022. She stated that the Father found her on Psychology Today and that she had met individually with each parent to discuss the children’s situation. A document written by Ms. Freda to the Father on November 9, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 41. Ms. Freda testified that she wrote the letter on the Father’s request. The letter notes the history of the children’s therapy with Expressive Connections and states that they were discharged from that therapy on October 26, 2022 and referred elsewhere. Ms. Freda read an excerpt of the letter that states “On October 20th, 2022 Paula D’Aguanno stated that Brian was punched in the throat by his father and needed to be taken to the emergency room. Paula stated this in the waiting area of our facility after Brian’s session had come to its completion. It was brought to our attention that Paula later stated to her attorney, and was put in a legal document, that Brian reported in his session directly to me that he was punched in the throat by his father. During both Eva and Brian’s brief care, neither child disclosed patterns or incidents of physical abuse from either parent nor did we see any signs of physical abuse, such as bruising…The family was immediately discharged due to Paula stating an inaccurate depiction of the events that occurred on 10/20/2023.” Ms. Freda testified that she had seen no evidence of Brian having been punched in the neck and that, if she had, she would have called Child Protective Services as a mandated reporter but that she made no such call in this case. Ms. Freda was asked by the children’s attorney on cross-examination whether she would have continued treating the children had the Mother’s statements not been brought to her attention by the Father and she testified “No. Because I had discussions with my supervisor. We felt that this case was outside the scope of our practice and that they needed a higher referral. So even if this had not occurred, this letter being brought to my attention, we felt like they needed a higher level of care that we were able to provide and we gave them a referral to a family and child psychologist in Oceanside.” By “higher level of care” Ms. Freda testified that she meant a psychologist, someone with a PhD while she only holds a masters degree. Testimony of Dalia Sarryeh: The Father called Dalia Sarryeh, a visitation social worker from Kids in Common, as his next witness. Ms. Sarryeh testified that she was the worker assigned to the subject family in 2022. She stated that she is employed by Kids in Common as the intake coordinator and visitation social worker and that she holds a master’s degree in social work. She testified that she observed the visits between the Father and the children from August through November of 2022. Ms. Sarryeh testified that through the intake process both parents “gave their perspective of why they were being directed to use our services” and that the Mother indicated that there were concerns regarding aggression from the Father toward Brian. She testified that the “services were meant to provide an assessment on how the interactions were, whether there were any ongoing concerns.” Ms. Sarryeh testified that the Father and the children always interacted very positively and that there were no concerns. She stated that the visits were for one hour and that they engaged in regular parent child activities. Testimony of Enide Paret: The Father called Enide Paret as his next witness. Ms. Paret testified that she is employed as a licensed practical nurse providing home care the Father’s stepson Gabriel for the last three years. She testified that she works 12 to 14 hours 4 days per week and that Gabriel is disabled, bedridden, and unable to do anything for himself. Ms. Paret testified that she sees the Father interacting with Brian and Eva and that the kids like “playing, running around, and playing with their father side by side.” She testified that she has never seen the Father physically discipline the children or raise his voice and has no concerns about the Father’s ability as a parent. She testified that she is paid by an agency through insurance. Ms. Paret stated that the Father is a good father, takes time taking care of the kids and doing activities with them. Ms. Paret testified that Brian and Eva refer to the Father’s wife as Cathy. Ms. Paret testified that she is a mandated reporter as part of her role as a licensed practical nurse and that she has never made any report regarding any of the children in the Father’s home. Testimony of P.R.: The Father next called his mother, P.R., as his witness. P.R.testified that she lives in Farmingdale, and that at one point she was ordered to supervise the Father’s parenting time with the children. She testified that she was the supervisor during the summer of 2022. P.R. testified that she’s retired from her job as executive assistant to a chairman of a firm, but that she’s still currently employed there “a couple hours a week.” She testified that she is a licensed social worker, which makes her a mandated reporter, and that she was previously employed by Southeast Nassau Guidance Center for a few years as a therapist and that she had done internships at Patterson Craig and Mercy Hospital. P.R. testified that there was a game for Brian in November of 2022 and the Father was coaching and Brian was playing and she observed the Mother take Eva and attempt to leave the building. She testified that she followed them because she was afraid the Mother was going to take Eva to the police or the “Safety Center.” She stated that she followed the Mother out and said “[Mother], you can’t take Eva. It’s [Father]‘s weekend to have Eva” and that the Mother replied, “Don’t tell me what I can do” and kept walking and she threatened to call 911. P.R.testified that “I did not call 911, but I stood by the car and I was going to stand in front of that car and if she left with Eva she was going to have to run me over.” She testified that Eva was four years old at the time. P.R. further testified that the Mother was giving Eva food in the car, and that she ultimately brought Eva back into the gym. With regard to her relationship with the Mother, P.R. testified that “I have always been nice to [Mother]. I have always been nice to her family. I have always been so nice to everybody. And I have — [Mother] sent me beautiful cards telling me — thanking me for so many things. And I sent her a beautiful letter when she broke up with [the Father].” The letter the witness referred to, dated February of 2021, was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 43 and the witness read it in its entirety into the record. She testified that she sent the letter because she was sad about the way things had turned out and wanted the Mother to know they could still have a happy life. She testified that the Mother did not respond to the letter but yelled at the Father for her knowing the Mother’s address. Regarding the supervised visitation, P.R. testified that the Father “is an amazing dad and his kids are the world to him” and described a number of activities they do together. She testified that the children have “a beautiful relationship with Cathy. She is so kind and patient and loving.” She stated that the children first called her C, then “Mommy C” until they were told not to and now they call her Gioia. P.R. testified that the children refer to the maternal grandmother as “Mommy Ida.” P.R. testified that she has seen the Father discipline the children by giving them timeouts and they go in their room, and that she has never seen him physically discipline them and has never seen bruises on them “that were caused by anyone” but that sometimes the children would get hurt playing. She testified that she saw Eva with a split lip at one point and called CPS because “she was injured by her mom and I’m a mandated reporter.” P.R. testified that she has attended various events for the children and that she helps with the children all the time as a babysitter, including C’s daughter Veronica. She testified that the Father put cameras up in his house because “there are always people knocking on the door from CPS and the police constantly and the only way to protect [Father]‘s family, protect my grandkids, [the Father] put cameras in so that everything in the inside and outside are documented because if we would play outside with the kids and they would fall and skin their knee and we were terrified that CPS was going to be called…Every time these children bumped themselves they got so upset and so scared and so did we.” P.R. testified that she’s taken the children to church many times and was present when both children were baptized. She repeatedly referred to the “hell” they’ve been living the last two years of an “endless reign of terror” but denied that she’s heard any negative conversations about anything that’s been going on in her presence. When asked if the “endless reign of terror” was coming all from the Mother and none from the Father, P.R. stated that is her opinion. Testimony of C.R.: C.R., the Father’s wife, testified as his next witness. She testified that she and the Father were married on April 28, 2022 and that she was living at her mother’s house in Howard Beach at that time. She stated that they got the keys to their house in Massapequa Park on April 29, 2022. C.R testified that the house is a split level, and there were cameras outside the home when they purchased it, but that she and the Father put cameras inside “because of that false allegations that Brian was being accused of, punching the children.” C.R. testified that she and the Father share a son, Julian who was born May 22, 2022, and that she has two children, Veronica who is 10, and Gabriel who is 8. She testified that Gabriel suffers from many disabilities, that he is both deaf and blind and is globally developmentally delayed, non-verbal, and has a G-tube for feeds and is on a trach ventilator and requires 24/7 care. She testified that she became a registered nurse in May of 2022. C.R testified that she has a great relationship with both Brian and Eva and that Brian currently refers to her as “C” and that Eva sometimes calls her “C” but mostly Gioia. She testified that there was a time that the children were calling her “Mommy C,” never just “Mommy,” in the summer of 2022 and that she and the Father Googled the issue and read some literature before deciding there was nothing inappropriate about it and that “the children are Puerto Rican” and that the terms “Mami” and “Papi” are commonly used to show respect. She testified that the children referred to the maternal grandmother as “Mami Ida” and the Mother’s boyfriend’s mother as “Mami Janet or something like that.” She stated that when the court ruled that they should choose another name they abided by the directives. C.R testified that she has attended some of the children’s events. She testified regarding the June 2022 incident that had taken place at Brian’s baseball game. She stated that she arrived late with the baby and that when she arrived she saw the Mother and Eva on the bleachers and waved to Eva, and Eva waved back at the baby. She testified that out of the corner of her eye she saw the Mother coming down the bleachers and that 10 to 20 seconds later Eva started following her. She testified that “She put her finger in my face and basically said if I don’t stop abusing her children that she will make sure mine are taken from me.” She testified that she responded by telling the Mother she was being inappropriate as there were children present and that she started pushing the baby stroller out of the way but that the Mother “was coming after me and she just kept repeating herself very loud. All the parents turned their heads.” She stated that “I was really intimidated and scared that she threatened me like that because I don’t know what that means. Like have my children taken away from me. I’ve done nothing but absolutely love and care for her children like they’re my children.” She testified that the Mother eventually left and Eva followed her back to the bleachers so she went to the other side of the dugout and when the teams changed she briefly told the Father what had happened out of earshot of Brian. After the game, C.R testified that they were all leaving and the Father told the children to come say goodbye to them and that she had said “give a hug to — and what I wanted to say was Mommy C because that’s what they had referred to me…and then I stopped myself because I realized that — you know, I felt that it was not a good idea to say that, but it was a little too late…and [Mother] heard me say Mommy and that’s it.” She stated that the Mother made a remark “gross or yuck or something like that.” She testified that the Mother and Father proceeded to have a verbal argument and the Mother started videotaping them from behind as they were exiting and that “She was videotaping and she said horrible things about my disabled child.” She stated that the Mother and Father were shouting back and forth and Brian and Eva were present, but that she did not raise her voice because there were kids there as was Julian. She then stated that she did raise her voice when she said “my son does not have cerebral palsy” because she was upset. She testified that, as they were walking to the car gum fell out of the Mother’s purse and the Father kicked it a few feet away. C.R testified that she said to the Mother “I can’t believe you’re a guidance counselor and you’re making — you’re, you know, making fun of a child with a disability” and that she was extremely upset. Photos taken June 29, 2022 were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 44 through 47. C.R testified that they had spent that day together with her daughter Veronica and her son Julian swimming in the pool and then went to dinner and for ice cream and then the children drew on the patio with chalk. She testified that she did not observe any bruises or injuries on Brian in any of the photos. She testified that she has never seen the Father raise a hand to Brian or to either of her children, and that she has seen the Father discipline Brian but never in a physical way. C.R testified that, as a stepparent, she cooks for Brian and Eva, does their laundry, makes their bed, changes their sheets, irons their clothes, helps with their lunches and homework, and that she doesn’t treat them any differently than she does her own children. She testified that her daughter Veronica has a wonderful relationship with Brian and Eva. C.R testified that she was aware of the Father’s arrest and the second allegation regarding a punch and she stated that she never noticed any injury to Brian at the hands of the Father or at any point. She testified that the children are always playing sports, playing in the pool and jumping from the couch and that they get little black and blues on their legs but “not anything that someone would cause.” C.R testified that she had taken Eva for a manicure at the end of December during Christmas week and that her school had a “candy cane day” so she got red nail polish with a candy cane on the ring fingers. She testified that when the Father picked the children up from school the next day that the nail polish was gone and she believes that the Mother told the Father “that it’s scandalous or it’s not appropriate for a little girl to have red nail polish.” C.R was asked if it had occurred to her to reach out to the Mother before taking Eva to get her nails painted, and she testified that they do not have the type of relationship that would allow for such contact, that they’ve never communicated in any way and it didn’t occur to her that the Mother would have been offended. Regarding Eva’s hair, C.R stated that she needs a haircut as she’s six years old and hasn’t had one yet but that they respected the Mother’s wishes. C.R was asked if she and/or the Father ever tell the children to say anything about their Mother and she testified that they tell them to tell the truth and that they “bought books that said, you know, about telling the truth and explain to them how important it is to tell the truth” and that they reference Jesus and being a good Catholic in that context. Regarding the Father’s application for custody, C.R testified that if he were granted custody of the children that they’d attend school with Veronica and that since she is available all the time that they wouldn’t have to go to before or aftercare and would have a regular school day and that they would continue attending all their extracurricular activities. C.R testified that she had seen the bruises on Brian’s knees that were reported to CPS for the first time in an email. She stated that she knows for a fact the Father didn’t cause the bruises and that he has never lied to her about anything. C.R stated that she is aware of the Father’s ADHD diagnosis and that he’s not currently taking any medication. Regarding the Mother’s FaceTime calls, C.R testified that she doesn’t call anymore, but that when she did the children were very happy and would tell her about their day. She testified that she did not listen to the calls, but if they were in the next room she couldn’t hear exactly what was said but knew they were on the phone. She stated that the calls were usually taken in their bedroom where they share bunk beds and that there is a camera in their bedroom but that none of the cameras in the house have audio. Following C.R.’s testimony, Petitioner rested. Respondent’s counsel made a lengthy application to dismiss, to which all counsel responded, and same arguments were later deemed closing arguments by the court, and later upon consent of all counsel. The children were interviewed by the court in camera on March 29, 2024 (Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270 [1969]). The Mother began her direct case, over the Father’s objection, on May 9, 2024. Testimony of Detective Miller: Detective Miller of the Nassau County Police Department (Shield #1462) testified as the Mother’s first witness. He testified that he works in the 7th Precinct in Seaford and that his role is to investigate crimes or incidents that occur with the confines of the precinct. He testified that there was an incident approximately two years ago with respect to these parties regarding an alleged assault when the “reporting person” and the children came into the precinct to report an incident that had happened a few days prior. Detective Miller indicated the that Mother was the reporting person he had referred to and she was accompanied by two children, one boy and one girl. The detective testified that anyone who comes in reports to the person at the desk and if a detective is needed they are called down, and on that date he received a call from the desk and went down to speak with the Mother. The detective testified that the allegation was that the child’s Father punched him in the throat while they were staying with him for a few days, that there was an order of protection involved, and the female child was a witness. He testified that he spoke with them briefly and got some of the details and then based on the children’s ages they were taken to the Special Victims Unit at the Safe Center in Bethpage where they have forensic interviewers who are better trained at interviewing children of that age. The detective testified that he drove in his car and the Mother and children followed in their own car and he met them at the Safe Center where they met with Detective Farrell. He stated that Detective Farrell introduced them to another interviewer and he and Detective Farrell observed the interview real time from another room. He testified that the children were interviewed separately and were able to answer all the questions and that the interviews lasted between a half hour and 45 minutes. He stated that he did not know where the Mother was at that time. The detective testified that after the interviews, as is done with any domestic incident, they take a supporting deposition from the reporting person so he took a supporting deposition from the Mother. When asked if Brian had corroborated the allegations made by the Mother, the detective testified that he did. He testified on cross-examination that he did not witness any crime, did not observe any bruises, and did not take any photos. On further cross-examination he testified that it was his determination that an arrest would be made and that the charges as he recalls were assault in the second degree, endangering the welfare, and possibly one other charge. Detective Miller testified that he was present when processing the arrest. He stated that the arresting officers had contacted the 7th precinct to verify their involvement and brought the Father into the 7th precinct. He stated that he informed the Father about the charges but had no further conversation with him. Testimony of the Mother, Paula Elisa D’Aguanno: The Mother then testified again as her own witness. She testified that the bruises on Brian’s legs occurred June 2, 2022 and that there were probably three more “egregious” bruises she observed and several more over the last two years. Series of photos were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits AAA, DDD and EEE which depicted various bruises on both children and which the Mother testified were taken after the Father’s parenting time. Upon further inquiry the Mother testified that Exhibit EEE has a print stamp that states January 23, 2020 but stated that it is not possible the photos were taken in 2020 because it shows her home at a different time. She confirmed she had no personal knowledge of how any of the bruises occurred. The Mother testified that in 2021 and 2022 the children came back from visitation with bruises many times and that she spoke with the Father about them more than half of the time. She stated that each time the Father would “reverse it” and claim that these injuries occurred at her house and then start making other accusations. Testimony of Ashanti Elliott: On May 20, 2024 Ashanti Elliott was called as the Mother’s next witness, out of turn. She testified on direct examination that she was Eva’s day care teacher at Tutor Time from August of 2022 through January of 2023. She stated that Eva was present at her facility every day during the time she worked there with both parents alternating drop-off, and either one of the parents or a grandmother picking her up. The witness testified that on December 15, 2022 Eva was dropped off at school and she immediately ran into the bathroom and was balled up in the corner and showed her a scratch on her arm and another on her cheek. After asking Eva how she got scratched, Ms. Elliott testified that they called CPS and reported that the child was scratched at the Father’s house based on the child’s report and because she had been in the Father’s care. She testified that they called the CPS mandated reported hotline. Ms. Elliott testified that there was another incident where Eva came in and ran and isolated herself which was unusual behavior for her. She testified that Eva had said an incident occurred in the Father’s care and there was a bruise on her arm. She testified that once again CPS was called on the mandated reporter hotline and a report was made indicating that an incident occurred while in the Father’s care. The witness testified that this occurred a week after the first incident. She stated that a third report to CPS was made by a co-teacher. Ms. Elliott testified that she spoke to both parents frequently and would give them both daily updates. The Father would sometimes say that the Mother was obsessed with him, was jealous of his wife, and that she didn’t really love her kids. The witness testified that her interactions with the parties were all subsequent to early 2022. She testified that she has never seen Eva refuse to go with the Father and that she was happy to see him. She stated that she was not made aware that all of the allegations made to CPS have been deemed unfounded. She stated that she never received any court order stating that the Father couldn’t pick up Eva or couldn’t have contact with Eva. When asked, she confirmed that as a daycare teacher she often sees bumps and bruises on children and that they’re common. She testified that after each of these incidents they contacted the Mother to let her know about the allegations and that CPS had been contacted. She stated that the scratches she observed on Eva were about 2-3 inches on her arm and smaller on her face. On further cross-examination the witness confirmed that each time the daycare called CPS it was more so based on the child’s reaction and behavior than the injuries themselves. Continued Testimony of the Mother, Paula Elisa D’Aguanno: The Mother then continued her direct testimony, again over the Father’s objection. On continued direct examination she testified that, regarding the termination of the children’s therapy with Joanna Freda, that she had reached out and texted back and forth with her prior attorney several times preceding an error being made. She testified that it had been erroneously stated that she had said that Brian disclosed in session that he was punched a second time when actually Joanna Freda was just present during a brief conversation when Eva told her in the waiting room that the Father had punched Brian again. She stated that she then asked Brian in front of Joanna if he had been hit at the Father’s house and Brian said “yes” and pointed to his throat so she took the children and ran out. She testified that a week after the incident in the waiting room she got a call from Ms. DiBernardo and she later received written communication indicating that there was a “boundary violation” because she had stated something inaccurate in a “court letter” and she testified that she immediately contacted her lawyer to address the mistake. She stated that she believed that the attorney had clarified the issue based on text messages. After reviewing a text message exchange between herself and her prior attorney, the Mother testified that she believes that the matter was not clarified and that the therapy was terminated because of a letter written by her attorney wherein she was “misquoted.” Respondent then rested. Having previously made arguments regarding the Mother’s motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the Father’s case-in-chief, counsel each made brief closing remarks. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A modification of any pre-existing custody order, particularly one entered into on consent, not only requires a “best interests” finding, but also requires a demonstration that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred since the prior order was entered into. It has been consistently held that “[w]here parents enter into an agreement concerning custody ‘it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the [child]‘”(Matter of Joseph F. v. Patricia F., 32 A.D.3d 938, 938-939 [2d Dept. 2006], quoting Smoczkiewicz v. Smoczkiewicz, 2 A.D.3d 705, 706 [2d Dept. 2003]). “Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child…determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Boodhoo v. Rampersaud, 122 A.D.3d 624, 625 [2d Dept 2014]; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 [1982]). This is so because “[n]o agreement of the parties can bind the court to a disposition other than that which after a weighing of all the factors involved shows to be in the child’s best interest” (Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95 [1982][internal citations omitted]). “Since weighing the factors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility and sincerity of the parties involved, the hearing court’s findings are accorded great deference, and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Jackson v.Coleman, 94 A.D.3d 762 [2d Dept. 2012]). The Court conducted an in camera interview of the children in the presence of their attorney (Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270 [1969]), and credits the children’s testimony as forthright, and honest. While this Court has considered and weighed the children’s testimony and expressed desires, their express wishes are not controlling, but rather the children’s wishes “are entitled to great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful” (Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 117 [2d Dept. 1990]). In this instance the testimony of Eva, age 5, and Brian, age 6 at the time (now 7) was meaningful and taken into consideration in determining the appropriate outcome. “In custody disputes, the value of forensic evaluations of the parents and children has long been recognized” (Ekstra v. Ekstra, 49 A.D.3d 594, 595 [2d Dept 2008]) and the opinions of forensic experts should “not be readily set aside” unless contradicted by the record (Volpe v. Volpe, 61 A.D.3d 691, 692 [2d Dept 2009], quoting, Bains v. Bains, 308 A.D.2d 557, 558 [2d Dept 2003]). Joint custody “reposes in both parents a shared responsibility for and control of a child’s upbringing” and as such, same “is encouraged primarily as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in a mature civilized fashion” (Braiman v. Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584 [1978] [internal citations omitted]). While an ideal outcome under the appropriate circumstances, joint custody has been rejected where the “parties are unable to communicate and make rational, joint decisions on matters relating to the care and welfare of children” (Matter of Bishop v. Lansley, 106 A.D.2d 732 [3d Dept. 1984]). “As a court-ordered arrangement imposed upon already embattled and embittered parents, accusing one another of serious vices and wrongs, [joint custody] can only enhance familial chaos” (Braiman, supra, at 590). In this case, while the parties lack the ability to communicate with one another in an appropriate or productive way and have demonstrated a lack of ability to effectively co-parent, the Court’s concerns regarding potential parental alienation outweigh the concerns about their ability to effectively co-parent. It is well-settled that a custodial parent’s interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent has been said to be “an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 115 [2d Dept 1995], quoting, Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 603-604, [2d Dept 1994]). Further, “‘the effect that an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent’ is also a proper and relevant consideration” (Young v. Young, supra., quoting, Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998 [1982]). A finding of parental interference is a factor to be considered in determining the best interests of the child (Brown v. Simon, 151 N.Y.S.3d 71, 85-86 [2d Dept 2021]). It has been held in the Appellate Division Second Department that a parent’s inability to place the needs of the child before their own need to express anger and hostility toward the other parent and the parent’s continuing denigration of the other suggest that that parent is unwilling or unable to abstain from this deleterious conduct and is therefore incapable of fostering a relationship with the other parent. (see, Brown v. Simon, supra.; Janecka v. Franklin, 150 A.D.2d 755, 757 [2d Dept 1989]) It has been further held that a parent’s persistent behavior in holding the other responsible for the unsubstantiated allegations of physical and/or sexual abuse has a negative effect on the child’s growth, development, and overall well-being (Brown v. Simon, supra.) and that “a parent’s false accusation of sexual abuse by the other parent constitutes conduct so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the parent is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Altieri v. Altieri, 156 A.D.3d 667, 669 [2d Dept 2017], citing, Matter of Honeywell v. Honeywell, 39 A.D.3d 857, 858 [2d Dept 2007]). Where the court concludes that one parent filed false reports with Child Protective Services regarding the other and repeatedly violated prior court orders regarding visitation, it has been held 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’ ” (Matter of Ordona v. Cothern, 126 A.D.3d 1544 [4th Dept 2015], quoting, Matter of Marino v. Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “It is well settled that Family Court does not have the authority to order a party to undergo counseling or therapy before visitation will be allowed…However, the court does have the authority to “include a directive to obtain treatment as a component of a custody or visitation order” (Mongiardo v. Mongiardo, 232 A.D.2d 741, 743 [3d Dept 1996], quoting, Matter of Sweet v. Passno, 206 A.D.2d 639, 640 [3d Dept 1994]) Here, the hateful and unproductive nature of the parties’ communication coupled with their levying of false accusations against one another, the Mother especially, to the point that neglect proceedings were commenced demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification. Having determined that a modification is necessary, the Court must now determine what modification would indeed be in the child’s best interests. “[W]here, as here, joint custody is not possible due to fundamental disagreements concerning the [child], it may be appropriate, depending upon the particular circumstances of the case, to award some custodial decision-making authority to the noncustodial parent” (Cohen v. Cohen, 177 A.D.3d 848 [2d Dept 2019]). “The division of authority is usually made either somewhat evenly, in order to maintain the respective roles of each parent in the child’s life or, although unevenly, in a manner intended to take advantage of the strengths, demonstrated ability, or expressed interest of the noncustodial parent with respect to a particular dimension of child-rearing” (Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 24 A.D.3d 589, 592 [2d Dept 2005]). It is this Court’s intention that by continuing joint legal custody, subject to the imposition of spheres of influence, that balanced decision-making power concerning the child will be created and fostered (Ring v. Ring, 15 A.D.3d 406 [2d Dept. 2005]). In the instant matter the court is faced with, in the words of Dr. Favaro, two parents who “hate each other more than they love their children.” The Father’s communication with the Mother, and reference to the Mother in third-party communications, has been indicative of his feelings toward her both prior to the outset of these proceedings and continuing throughout. His emails to the Mother have been rife with insults and degrading comments, and his emails to third parties including Eva’s teacher and the children’s former therapist contain unnecessary commentary about her parenting skills. The Father’s enrollment of both children in extracurricular activities in his own town where the children do not primarily reside, over the Mother’s objection, further demonstrates his marginalization of her and his lack of respect for her opinions and input. The Mother testified, and he did not deny, that he has deducted the Mother’s pro rata share of these activities, without her consent, from her child support payments. In addition to the distance he has created between the children’s residence and their activities, the Father’s behavior at the events attended by the Mother along with that of his family members have put the Mother in an impossible situation choosing between attending these events and dealing with their behavior, or not attending and being subjected to ridicule for her non-attendance. When the Mother offered to alternate attendance at these events the Father responded by ignoring the request altogether and instead questioning her commitment as a parent based on her not wanting to attend every practice and game. The Father’s behavior as it relates to the FaceTime calls is cause for further doubt in his ability to foster a relationship between the children and the Mother. He requested a narrowed timeframe for the calls from the court, and then held the Mother to the exact the minute of the “window” and denied her access if her calls fell outside those times and sent her insulting emails in the event calls were missed. The Mother has now chosen not to FaceTime with the children during the Father’s parenting time. The Father has insisted on FaceTime calls with the children in the morning before school at their most chaotic time of the day which inevitably creates turmoil and stress for the children, and then sends more insulting emails if the calls aren’t complied with. The Mother is not without her own shortcomings. From the outset of these proceedings and continuing straight through until past their conclusion it has been confirmed time and again that the Mother has encouraged the children to lie and make false allegations against the Father. The Mother has had the Father arrested and subjected him to orders of protection and CPS investigations to the point that the Father installed cameras throughout the interior and exterior of him home. Despite Dr. Favaro’s findings that no abuse of the children has occurred, the multitude of cross-agency determinations that no abuse and no crime has occurred, and Brian’s own repeated admission that the alleged punch to his throat did not occur, the Mother continues to claim that “the Safe Center proved” the allegations of punching. She then withheld the children immediately following the conclusion of the trial based on more accusations of sexual abuse, which the children confirm she instructed them to lie about (and was determined to be unfounded after a Court Ordered Investigation that the mother brought the children to). She has repeatedly disregarded court directives and exercised self-help based on her claims of “good faith” which she stated is a legal term that absolves her of any need to abide by court orders. Leaving aside the impact on the Father, the Mother’s continued allegations have required the children to be interviewed countless times by CPS, several times by police and forensic interviewers from law enforcement agencies in addition to the four meetings with Dr. Favaro and ongoing contact with their attorney. The Mother’s inability to appreciate the consequences of her actions and their impact on these children is disturbing. The Father has made his own calls to CPS making retaliatory claims against the Mother to the point that CPS filed neglect petitions against both parents predicated upon both parties repeatedly calling in false claims — a step not undertaken often or lightly and which speaks volumes as to the relationship between these parents. In this case Dr. Favaro has recommended “parallel parenting” where each parent has their “own separate universe,” and so that the only time the parents communicate with each other is for an event or some kind of emergency. He further recommended that the parties be guided by certain rules, including: (1) that neither parent has the right to make a decision that effects the other person’s parenting time; (2) that the parents should not communicate about the children’s day to day activities unless it’s on a neutral platform like Our Family Wizard, and the parents should not correspond verbally; and (3) that the parents should not see each other for anything other than incidental contact during transitions, and schedules of access should be divided in blocks so there aren’t multiple transitions that have the parents needing to interact with one another. Dr. Favaro stated that, with respect to unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, once a determination has been made by the finder of fact that an allegation was false, there should be consequences and it should be taken as a negative in the distribution of custodial rights. He testified that being told or encouraged to lie is very dysregulating to a child. Both parties here have damaged, and continue to damage, these children in their quest to hurt each other. While neither comes to the table with clean hands, it is the Mother who has been found time and time again, continuing throughout these proceedings and beyond, to have been instructing the children to lie and make allegations that have been proven to be false. Additionally, she has taken it upon herself to violate court orders over and over. The subject children, Brian and Eva, are thriving despite their predicament, as testified to by Dr. Favaro. He had testified, and it has been the position of the children’s attorney on their behalf, that the children love both parents very much and that their best interests can only be served by giving each parent nearly equal parenting time with them. It is clear that, should either parent be given a significant majority of the parenting time, the parent with the lesser share is likely to be marginalized and/or erased from the children’s lives. Additionally, as these parties have demonstrated a complete breakdown in communication and an inability to co-parent with any efficacy, legal custody must be divided into “spheres of influence.” The Court having searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the sex offender registry and the Family Court’s child protective records, and after full consideration of all of the foregoing, the court hereby directs the following: Both parties shall immediately enroll in, and complete, a parenting class and shall participate in the P.E.A.C.E. program or equivalent such program. Certificates of completion must be submitted to the court to be made part of the electronic file. The parties shall share joint legal custody of the children subject to the following spheres of influence: The Mother shall have final decision making as it pertains to all educational matters including but not limited to choice of school, academic programs, tutoring, summer education programs, and academic enrichment programs. This sphere is granted on the condition that the children not miss more than three consecutive days of school in the future without a doctor’s note while in the mother’s care. A violation of such would be considered a significant change in circumstances by the court. Regarding extracurricular activities, the Father may enroll each child in up to three activities at any given time, not to unreasonably interfere with any significant amount of the Mother’s parenting time without her prior written approval, and provided that such activities are located within a 5 mile radius of the Mother’s home unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. The Mother shall be included equally on all correspondence from any provider for such extracurricular activities and shall be immediately provided copies of all schedules. All extracurricular activities shall be at the Father’s sole expense. The Father may exercise his option to coach any sports activity. The parties shall alternate attending the children’s activities unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. If the Father is coaching said activity, then he may be present at every game in that capacity only, however he shall not interact with the Mother and he shall not permit any third party or member of his family to be in attendance when the Mother is attending said game. If the Mother misses more than 3 events associated with any such extracurricular activity (i.e., games or performances) and/or causes the children to miss more than three events (practices, games, lessons, etc.) within 5 miles of her residence, then the following year the Father may enroll the child in said activity within a 10 mile radius of her residence. The Father shall have final decision making as it pertains to religion and religious instruction, and he may enroll the children in any attendant religious education program at his own expense. The religious education classes may be in the Father’s home church as long as the classes take place during the Father’s regular parenting time. The Father shall have final decision making as it pertains to the children’s health and medical care as well as to dental and ophthalmology care. The parties shall communicate with each other regarding the children solely through Our Family Wizard and each shall be responsible for their own costs incurred utilizing this application. The parties must consult with one another on major decisions pertaining to the children’s health, education and welfare and if the parties cannot agree on a decision, the parties shall speak to a professional in the specific field (i.e. a teacher or doctor) to assist them in arriving at a mutually agreed upon decision. Should the parties still not be able to reach a mutually agreeable decision, final decision making shall be governed by the “spheres of influence” as noted above. Each party shall be entitled to full access to all records pertaining to the health, education, and welfare of the child and this order shall serve as authorization for provider to permit such direct access. This provision entitles each parent independent access to all school portals and apps, as well as any medical records portal available, and each parent shall be entitled to receive duplicate correspondence and notices addressed to each and mailed to their respective residences from all schools, summer camps, and all treating doctors. In the event of an emergency affecting the child, when it is not practicable for the parties to consult with each other regarding a prescribed course of treatment, the parent who the child is with at the time shall have the right to make a decision regarding the child’s immediate treatment, but that parent shall promptly notify the other parent of the medical emergency and immediate treatment and shall also consult with the other parent prior to making any decision as to follow up treatment. Each parent shall give the other parent timely advance notice of any and all medical, dental and other similar appointments and each parent shall have the right to be in attendance at all appointments, either in person or via telephone. The parent who is exercising parenting time with the child at the time of the appointment shall be responsible for taking the child to the appointment. In the event either parent cannot attend a medical appointment, the parent who took the child to the appointment shall provide medical documentation concerning the visit to the other parent. Both parties shall ensure that the other is listed as an emergency contact person, and fully responsible parent/guardian on any paperwork or forms pertaining to the child’s health, education, and welfare and each party shall immediately provide any password or login information necessary to fully participate in any electronic communications, apps, or other programs pertaining to the child’s health, education and welfare. Parenting time shall be divided nearly equally between the parties, with the Mother retaining residential custody for school purposes only pursuant to the Final Order of Custody and Parenting Time issued simultaneously herewith, which contains all other terms pertaining to custody and parenting time. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. 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 MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. Pursuant to Chapter 595 of Laws of 2008, the Court has searched the required databases and has considered the results of the search. Dated: July 11, 2024