T.M. v. J.P.

ADDITIONAL CASES In the Matter of a Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act J.P., Petitioner v. T.M., Respondent DECISION AND ORDER PROCEDURAL HISTORY The parties, T.M. (hereinafter “Father”) and J.P. (hereinafter “Mother”), are parents of the subject children, M.T.M. born on February 4, 2014 (hereinafter “M.T.M.”) and L.J.M. born on May 20, 2015 (hereinafter “L.J.M.”). On November 1, 2016 the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement which was incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce dated December 19, 2016 (hereinafter the “2016 Stipulation”). Pursuant to the 2016 Stipulation, the parties agreed to, inter alia, joint legal and joint physical custody of the children, with the children’s primary residence to be the Mother’s residence with the parties sharing equal parenting time. On October 17, 2023, the Father filed, by Order to Show Cause, a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking to modify the 2016 Stipulation and seeking an order directing that neither party be permitted to relocate the children’s residence from Massapequa or, if the Mother were to relocate to Annapolis, Maryland, for an order granting him residential custody of the children (Docket No. V-08322-23/23A, V-08323-23/23A, hereinafter the “23A Petition”). Upon execution of that Order to Show Cause, the Court ordered that neither party was to relocate the children outside their present school district in Massapequa. On November 8, 2023, the Mother filed a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking to modify the 2016 Stipulation and seeking an order granting her sole custody of the children and permission to relocate with them to Maryland (Docket No. V-08322-23/23B, V-08323-23/23B, hereinafter the “23B Petition”). The parties appeared in court on October 31, 2023 with the Father represented by James Graham, Esq. and the Mother represented by Lee Rosenberg, Esq., and with Donna McCabe, Esq. having appeared as attorney for the children. The matters were unable to be resolved on that date, or the next court date of January 22, 2024. On February 20, 2024, the Father filed, by Order to Show Cause, a Petition for Modification of an Order of Custody/Visitation seeking to modify the 2016 Stipulation (Docket No. V-08322-23/24C, V-08323-23/24C, hereinafter the “24C Petition”) and a Petition for Enforcement of an Order of Custody and Visitation (Docket No. V-08322-23/24D, V-08323-23/24D, hereinafter the “24D Petition”). In the 24C Petition, the Father sought again to prevent the Mother from relocating with the children to Maryland and for sole custody of the children with parenting time for the Mother. The 24D Petition sought enforcement of the 2016 Stipulation so as to provide for equal parenting time for the Father which he alleged was not occurring. The parties appeared in court on March 8, 2024 but were unable to reach a resolution. On March 28, 2024, the Mother filed another Petition for Enforcement of an Order of Custody and Visitation (Docket No. V-08322-23/24E, V-08323-23/24E, hereinafter the “24E Petition”) containing several claims pertaining to the Father’s behavior and caretaking of the children during his parenting time. The trial of this matter commenced on April 22, 2024 and continued on April 24, 2024, May 8, 2024, May 13, 2024, May 29, 2024, June 20, 2024, June 21, 2024, July 9, 2024, July 29, 2024 and September 4, 2024. As a procedural matter, the 23A Petition was withdrawn on May 8, 2024 and the Court issued a further order directing neither party to relocate the children’s residence outside of Massapequa under the 24C Petition. On June 21, 2024 the Mother withdrew her 23B Petition and was granted leave to amend the 24E Petition to include her request for relocation in that petition. Therefore, the instant Decision After Trial is rendered with respect to the remaining petitions, to wit, the 24C, 24D, and 24E petitions. FINDINGS OF FACT Witness: Father, T.M.: The Father was the first witness to testify. The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement, which was incorporated but not merged in their Judgment of Divorce, was entered as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 in evidence. The Father testified that, at the time the parties were divorced they had a liberal parenting time schedule, that they were both living and working in New York City at the time so the time was approximately equal. He stated that during a typical week he would have the children two days and the Mother would have them three days, and they would alternate weekends. He further testified that, since they lived close to each other they did a lot of things with the children together. The Father testified that he started discussing the possibility of moving to Massapequa in 2017 after they both realized they did not want to raise the children in the city. He testified that the Mother relocated to Massapequa in July of 2017, and that he first moved to Point Lookout in October of 2017. During that time, he testified that he would come out to see the children two to three times a week to see the children, usually at the Mother’s home, and that he would sometimes sleep at her house as he did not yet have a residence on Long Island. He testified that they each took summer vacations with the children separately and that he had had the children for a few weekends in Manhattan, a weekend in Tarrytown to visit friends, and a ten-day summer trip to Lake Michigan. The Father testified that he lived in Point Lookout until May of 2018. From October of 2017 through May of 2018 the Father testified that the children would spend one or two weeknights with him and every other weekend. He stated that Ms. Noto was hired in February of 2018. The Father moved from Point Lookout to Long Beach in May of 2018 and lived there for a year until May of 2019. During that year, the Father testified that the parenting time schedule remained as it had been when he lived in Point Lookout. The Father testified that M.T.M. began kindergarten in Massapequa in 2019. He testified that M.T.M.s’ first extracurricular activities were flag football when he was four or five, little league tee-ball when he was five, soccer in 2018, basketball for the 2019/2020 winter season, and that he had taken swimming lessons in 2018 and 2019. The Father testified that M.T.M. played two seasons of flag football but then stopped as he did not express a continued interest. He testified that M.T.M. played tee-ball in spring of 2019 which would be held twice a week. He stated that either he would bring M.T.M., or the Mother or Ms. Noto would bring him, but that he attended all the practices and games regardless of who brought him. He testified that the Mother would attend the ones that she had brought M.T.M. to. Since then M.T.M. has played baseball for four seasons. On continued direct examination of the Father, a series of photographs was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 8A through D. The Father testified that the photographs, which each bear date and timestamps, represent dates and times when the children were with him where the Mother had claimed otherwise based upon her own calendars submitted as exhibits to her petitions. The Father testified that Exhibit 8A depicts L.J.M. and his stepdaughter Amelia in their soccer photo, a team which he testified that he coached alongside his wife as assistant coach. The Father testified that the photograph entered as Exhibit 8C depicts him coaching L.J.M.’s third grade basketball team, and that Exhibit 8D shows both L.J.M. and Amelia with their second grade basketball which the Father testified that he also coached. He testified that he was also assistant coach for L.J.M.’s first grade team. A series of photos was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 10A through D which the Father testified depicts M.T.M. with his little league baseball team for spring of 2023 for which he was assistant coach, M.T.M.’s 2022 little league team for which the Father stated he was head coach, little league spring of 2021 when he was also head coach, and spring of 2019 when he was assistant coach. The Father testified that he was assistant coach for both children’s little league teams in 2019. Petitioner’s Exhibits 11A through D in evidence, as testified to by the Father, depict M.T.M.’s fourth grade basketball team for which the Father served as assistant coach, his third grade basketball team for which the Father was head coach, his second grade basketball team for which the Father was also head coach, and his basketball team from winter of 2019 to 2020 for which the Father served as assistant coach. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 12A through D in evidence depict both children at their karate school engaged in various karate activities, and that he would bring them to karate, which they participated in twice per week, approximately 50 percent of the time. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 13A through 13G in evidence depict M.T.M. during his 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2023 soccer seasons with his teammates, and a photo of L.J.M. during the 2023 soccer season. He testified that he was a spectator for those soccer seasons as the Massapequa Soccer Club “brings in seasoned professionals or college athletes to coach” those teams. The Father testified that these were travel teams, with games taking place within approximately a 30-minute travel radius and with there being 10 to 12 games per season. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 14A through D in evidence depict L.J.M.’s 2022 and 2023 lacrosse teams for which he was a spectator, and that Amelia is in the photos as she played on the same team. He testified that there were two practices and one game each week for these teams each season and that he attended every practice and game. He testified that the photo marked 14C was a photo of L.J.M. in July of 2023 trying out for Team 91 which is a club year-round lacrosse team. He stated that she had made the team, along with Amelia, and that there were practices twice a week and games would be tournament style once or twice a month with game days consisting of three games. The Father testified that he attended “probably 80 percent” of the practices and games for that team. Upon further inquiry, the Father clarified that tournaments do not occur all year, but practices continue all year such that during the winter the team has practice only, and when the spring season starts again the tournaments resume. He testified that he attended about 40 percent of the winter practices. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 15A through C in evidence depict him at swimming lessons with both children in 2018, which he stated they continued with through the start of Covid. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 16A through C in evidence depict him and L.J.M. at her annual “Sweetheart Dance” at the local middle school, and that Amelia and Jenny also attended. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17 is a photo of M.T.M. with the Father at the school “Boys Bash” in March of 2024. He testified that he also attended the Boys Bash with M.T.M. in 2022 as depicted in Petitioner’s Exhibit 22 in evidence. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 21A through D in evidence are of L.J.M. at various Girl Scouts events in 2022 and 2023, and that Amelia is in the same Girl Scout troop. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 18A through E in evidence depict M.T.M.’s various birthday parties. Specifically, the photos marked Exhibits 18A and B were from M.T.M.’s birthday party in 2024 held at an escape room, and 18D was taken at a Laser Bounce birthday party for M.T.M. in 2022. He further stated that Exhibit 18C was taken during M.T.M.’s birthday celebration at the Father’s home which the Mother attended along with additional family members, and that the photo marked 18E was from M.T.M.’s sixth birthday at Dave and Buster’s which was attended by both parents. The Father testified that the Dave and Busters party was coordinated by the nanny, Diane Noto, and that he was the one who organized the Laser Bounce party and the escape room party. The Father testified that Petitioner’s Exhibits 19A through D in evidence depict L.J.M.’s various birthday parties. He testified that Exhibit 19A shows a rock-climbing party held at the Gravity Vault in 2023 organized by him, and that Exhibit 19B shows a roller-skating party at United Skates. He testified that Exhibit 19C was a photo from L.J.M.’s 2021 birthday party in his backyard which was attended by both parents and other family. He testified that Exhibit 19D was a photo of L.J.M.’s birthday party in May of 2020 which was just a small gathering at his house, and that the Mother had been invited but he could not recall whether she attended. With regard to religion, the Father testified that he brings the children to church approximately 75 percent of the Sundays that he has with them, and a photo of them together at church for Easter of 2019 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. He testified that both children are enrolled in Faith Formation through the St. Rose of Lima Church in Massapequa and that both children were baptized and received the sacraments of reconciliation and their first holy communion. He testified that the parents both attended each of these sacraments and that both sets of maternal and paternal grandparents attended the baptisms and communions. Petitioner’s Exhibits 23A and B in evidence, per the Father’s testimony, are photos from the trip to Great Barrington, Massachusetts taken on February 24, 2023. He testified that on that day he and M.T.M. had walked around the town before meeting other people at the ski lodge, and that after everyone else concluded skiing they all met at the Great Barrington Brewery and Restaurant which was chosen by everyone as a place to eat dinner. He testified that about 10 other local Massapequa families joined them for dinner, and that they were at the brewery from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He testified that he did not consume any alcohol at the brewery. The Father testified that the Mother and her father arrived the pick the children up around 9:00 p.m. and that he consumed no alcohol prior to them being picked up. He testified that when the Mother and her father arrived, he saw their car lights in the driveway, which was on a steep incline of approximately 45 to 50 degrees and that he gathered the children, grabbed their bags and walked them out to the paternal grandfather’s car, handed their bags to the grandfather and the children got into the car. He testified that the Mother remained in the car, and that as he was walking back up the driveway he slipped and fell. Photographs of the Father’s house were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 24A through H. He testified that his house is a 4-bedroom split level. A photo taken at the Father’s wedding to his current wife on November 11, 2023 was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 25 and includes the Father and his wife and all three children. The Father testified on cross-examination by the children’s attorney that his current wife, who had met the subject children in the fall of 2021, and Amelia had moved into his house in August of 2023. The Father testified that he first became aware of the Mother’s relationship with Mr. S. on August 25, 2023 when he went to the Mother’s house and Mr. S. was there. The Father testified that, to his knowledge, the Mother had introduced the children to one prior boyfriend, Bill Rubino, who she had dated for approximately three years and with whom she had broken up in May of 2023. The Father testified that he had had a more detailed discussion about the trip to Massachusetts with the Mother in April of 2023. He testified that the Mother had expressed that the children, specifically M.T.M., had concerns about the Father’s drinking when they were on trips and suggested that he not drink in the presence of the children. The Father testified that he had agreed to same and has not had a drink in front of the children since then. Regarding his own health issues, the Father testified that in 2019 he had had a seizure and was taken to a local hospital. He testified that he had had a prior seizure in April of 2014 which had been associated with a stroke he had had in 2014 while living in New York City. He testified that the stroke resulted from blood clots which resulted from flare ups related to his ulcerative colitis which he had begun dealing with in 2013. He testified that he had been treated with intravenous steroids in 2013, and he was then taking immunosuppressants. Following the 2014 stroke, he testified that he had had physical, occupational, and speech therapy and was placed on blood thinners and an anti-seizure medication called Kepra. He stated that he remained on blood thinners for two-plus years into 2016 or 2017, and the anti-seizure medication for approximately the same time. Following the 2014 stroke he testified that he returned to work in July of 2014 after four to six weeks, and that his ability to work was not affected, nor was his ability to interact with his children or the Mother. Regarding the 2019 seizure, the Father testified that he had been told it sometimes happens as a residual effect of a stroke. Following the 2019 seizure, the Father testified that he had gone back on Kepra and that his understanding is that he will remain on that medication indefinitely. The Father testified that his 2019 seizure occurred in a hotel room in Pennsylvania when he was with his parents and the children. He testified that he returned to work immediately. The Father testified that, from the time he had moved to Massapequa in 2019 through approximately April of 2023 that with regard to parenting time “We have never had a defined set schedule given that we both work and that we live close to each other and share a nanny, but generally speaking week to week, two week nights at my house and every other weekend with me, which would equate to six days every 14 days in a month.” He testified that, following the commencement of the instant legal proceedings, the Mother began withholding the children from him. He stated that he and the Mother had previously been in constant communication and that beginning in December of 2023, his emails requesting his equal share of parenting time were responded to by the Mother with counterproposals of significantly less than equal time. Emails between the parties dating from November 27, 2023 through December 6, 2023 were entered into evidence as Petitioner Exhibit 26. The Father testified that the email discussions about parenting time ended that month with the Mother stating that parenting time has never been equal, and him eventually saying okay. Emails between the parties dating from December 26, 2023 through January 2, 2024 regarding the January 2024 parenting time schedule were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 28. The Father testified that he had asked the Mother to send a proposal for equal parenting time and she refused claiming that she had historical tallies of his parenting time to show that it hadn’t been equal in the past. As a result, he testified that he only had the children seven days in January. The Father testified that in February of 2024 he had both children together only ten days, which resulted in part from the parties having taken the two children on separate trips with L.J.M. going on a vacation with him and M.T.M. going away with the Mother. Emails between the parties dating from February 28, 2024 through March 8, 2024 regarding parenting time for March of 2024 were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 30 in evidence. The Father testified that he had the children for seven days in the month of March 2024. He stated that he had sent the Mother an approximately equal parenting time proposal on February 29, 2024 and that she responded with the proposal of his having the children for only seven days. He testified that the Mother traveled for work from March 4th through 7th and that during that period of time he saw the children getting on and off their school bus right near his house but that the maternal grandmother was present. He testified that he spoke with the maternal grandmother indicating that these days were supposed to be his parenting time but that the conversation ended with the children going with the grandmother. The Father testified that he then emailed the Mother on March 4th and that this was the first time he learned that she had traveled away without the children. He testified that he continued to email the Mother each day she was gone stating that the time was to be his parenting time and that the maternal grandmother had no right to take the children, and the Mother either responded by stating that the children would be going with the maternal grandmother or didn’t respond at all to the emails. The Father testified that in April of 2024 he also had only seven nights of parenting time. He testified that he had emailed the Mother a 50/50 proposal during the last few days of March and that she responded with a counter proposal that gave him only five days preceding the first day of the instant trial and stating that “the Court would decide the rest.” The Father testified that he does not discuss the Mother or her family in the presence of the children. The Father testified that he has heard the Mother say negative things about him in the presence of the children including an incident in March 2023 when he was preparing to take M.T.M. on a trip with him and he heard the Mother telling the children to “make sure daddy feeds you.” He testified to a similar incident in July of 2023. The Father testified that his parents live in Phoenix, Maryland and that he visits them once or twice a year, most often by car which is about 230 miles and takes about five and a half hours each way. He testified that it has taken as little as four and a half and as long as seven hours to drive. He testified that traveling by train, which he has done four or five times, takes an hour from Massapequa to Penn Station, New York and then another three hours from Penn Station, Baltimore. The Father testified that he has flown to Maryland more than once, that the easiest trip is from Islip MacArthur Airport via Southwest Airlines or from JFK Airport via Delta Airlines and that the trip includes about 50 minutes from his home to the airport, an hour and a half of wait time at the airport, an hour-long flight, and then a car ride to the destination within Maryland. The Father testified that he is asking the court not to permit the Mother to relocate with the children to Maryland. He testified that even if they are not permitted to relocate, he’s seeking sole custody of the children and to have final say on major decisions given the Mother’s parenting decisions. He stated that he would still want an equal parenting time arrangement in Massapequa where the children have lived almost all of their lives, and that he would want an order that the children are never to be in the presence of Justin S.. When asked about a parenting arrangement should the Mother be permitted to relocate, the Father became emotional when stating that “I find it hard to find a practical, a reasonable way to have meaningful access to my children as to continue to be an influential father and to see them every day or every other day or at least week to week without putting incredible burden on the children for travel and logistical issues and stress.” He went on to state that he would want as much time with the children as possible including the entire summer and all school breaks, but that he wants them to have a normal social life and that that arrangement “would take away from a lot of childhood experiences that they should have” and that he wishes “both parents to be in our children’s lives every single day every single week because that is important to me.” Regarding his own relocation, the Father testified that he has put down roots and bought a house in Massapequa which has been the only town and community they’ve known since they were toddlers, and that he is remarried and his wife has a daughter whose father lives on Long Island in Amityville, the next town over from Massapequa such that a move for him would take that child from her father. He testified that he has had no discussions with the Mother about her husband moving to New York. The Father testified that when the children are with him they have FaceTime or phone contact with the Mother everyday but that he is only able to speak with them by phone or by FaceTime with them about 60 percent of the time when they are with the Mother. When he calls and gets no answer, he will send the Mother a text message which results in a callback about 50 percent of the time. He testified that anytime the Mother sends him a text message requesting that the children call, he has them call 100 percent of the time. The Father was asked about a parenting schedule should the Mother opt to move to Maryland without the children, and he testified that he would want her to see the children “every month so long as it’s not burdensome and stressful on the children in regards to travel.” He testified that “As difficult as it would be to not have any breaks with the children on my own I would want to be fair about it and give her the breaks” including the summer. On cross-examination, the Father testified that he was aware of a provision in the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement that requires them to go to mediation or a parenting coordinator prior to going to court, and that he did not follow that provision by commencing the instant action. He testified that there is a children’s bill of rights included as part of the parties’ stipulation which includes, in part, a right to privacy when speaking to either parent on the phone. He testified that the children have privacy in M.T.M.’s room, along with other places, and that the children typically communicate with their Mother from M.T.M.’s room. He testified that he had put a recording device in M.T.M.’s room which was voice-activated, and that the device had been there less than a week and he believes that the Mother now has the recording device. He denied that the device would go on when the children were speaking with their Mother and testified that he had bought it for work purposes in January of 2024 and M.T.M. found it shortly thereafter. He testified that he used the device in the children’s rooms for work purposes and switched it from room to room depending on which room he was working in stating that he does not have an office inside the house with a door that closes. In January of 2024 he testified that he was working from home five days a week from nine to five, sometimes from nine to eight, and that when school was in session the children would be at school from 9:15 to 3:30. The Father testified on continued cross-examination that he had “a few surgeries” in 2016, specifically related to his ulcerative colitis and his GI tract. At the time, he testified that he was working at a firm called Friedman Billings Ramsey in Manhattan where he worked from 2006 through 2019. The Father testified that while the children never attended school in Manhattan, that M.T.M. has attended “a day care or twos program unofficial pre-K” and that he also attended the Blue School in Manhattan. He testified that when the Mother moved to Long Island that the children went to a Montessori school for preschool which was located within the Massapequa School District. On continued cross-examination he stated that from July 2017 through October 2017 when he was in Manhattan and the Mother was in Massapequa, that he would come out to Massapequa two to three days per week and stay at the Mother’s house to spend time with the children. He testified that he would take children to spend weekends with him in Manhattan a few times, but not 50 percent. The Father testified that, to his knowledge, the Mother has always worked for Ernst & Young, from when they were married through the present, and that she works primarily from home. On further cross-examination, the Father testified that prior to the parties moving from New York City to Massapequa in 2017 that he had suggested exploring other locations including New Jersey and Maryland. An email from the Father to the Mother from 2017 wherein he indicated that he did not wish at that time to move to Long Island and suggested the Mother move instead to New Jersey. Emails between the parties dated November 27, 2023 regarding parenting time during December of 2023 were previously entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 26. In the emails the Mother provided her own list of the number of nights that the Father exercised parenting time during previous years based on her own records and proposed a schedule that she stated was in “the best interests of the children.” Upon inquiry, the Father maintained that the Mother’s records were inaccurate and lies. Emails between the parties dated January 18, 2024 regarding parenting time during February of 2024 were previously entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 29. In the email the Father noted that M.T.M. had gone to his bedroom to speak with the Mother as that is where he goes for privacy. The Father conceded upon inquiry that there was a voice activated recording device in M.T.M.’s bedroom that was there for work purposes because he works in that room sometimes. He stated that he used the device only on his own time when M.T.M. was not there. The Father acknowledged that M.T.M. would speak to his therapist in that room as well but testified that zero conversations were recorded on that device. Upon inquiry, the Father acknowledged that there is a pending child support violation petition filed by the Mother. He testified that he had never sought a downward modification of his child support order. He testified that he is currently paying for childcare, that he has been paying both child support and childcare expenses. He agreed upon inquiry that since 2016 he has not continuously been paying the ordered amount as there was a different amount that he has been paying on consent of the Mother on time every month. He testified that they had written communication about it. Respondent’s Exhibit H was entered into evidence, which included a series of emails between the parties dated June 16, 2017. Therein the Father asked for a reduction of his child support obligation and the Mother asked him to comply with the terms of their stipulation pertaining to mutual respect and the children’s bill of rights. The Father agreed that he would comply, and the Mother responded that she expected full compliance with the agreement. The Mother set forth terms and conditions and agreed to take a lesser amount of $2400.00 per month for child support. The Father conceded that there was no formalized modification of the parties’ 2016 Stipulation as it pertains to child support though the 2016 Stipulation explicitly precludes modification of any its terms in an informal manner. An email exchange between the parties regarding parenting time for January 2024, was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 28. Further email exchanges were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 30 and 31. Upon inquiry the Father agreed that the Mother’s emails contained her account of the number of overnights the children spent with the Father during January of 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 based on her own records. The Father disputed the accuracy of the Mother’s accounts but agreed that he did not specifically refute her claims in that particular email chain. Regarding Petitioner’s Exhibit 30 which was another email exchange between the parties regarding parenting time for March of 2024, the Father requested 50 percent of the overnights and the Mother again provided a list of her own account of the number of overnights the Father had exercised during March of 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 based on her own records. The Father testified that he does not have his own calendar from the same timeframe where he kept records of his overnight parenting time, however he stated that he can refute many of the Mother’s claims as he has photographs of many of the dates the Mother claimed to have had the children overnight. Petitioner’s Exhibit 31 was another email exchange between the parties regarding parenting time for April of 2024 parenting time emails, and therein the Father requested 50 percent of the overnights and the Mother provided her own account of April 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 based upon her own records. The Father agreed upon inquiry that he did not explicitly refute these claims in the email exchange. Upon inquiry the Father agreed that his initially filed petition did not include a claim that the Mother had denied him parenting time and agreed that the 2016 Stipulation does not include a radius clause prohibiting relocation. The Father further testified that he was born in Baltimore, Maryland and raised in Phoenix, Maryland. He testified that his sister and her family live in Maryland. The Mother’s attorney proceeded to list several names, referring to many as “friends” of the Father’s and some as otherwise known to the Father, and asked if they live in “the DC/Maryland/Virginia area” providing no context or specifics and the Father agreed as to several and denied the claim as to others. The Father was asked if he had indicated to the Mother in 2017 that he didn’t want to live on Long Island, which he stated he did not recall saying. Respondent’s Exhibit I was entered into evidence which was an email from the Father to the Mother dated March 28, 2017 wherein the Father indicated that he did not wish to live on Long Island and highlighted many benefits of moving to the Maryland/Virginia area. The Father testified that he started a new business within the last six months and that he does not have a steady income at present time. He testified that the cost of living on Long Island has gone up since 2017 and that his income is lower than it was in 2017 at present. The Father was asked if the cost of living in Maryland is less than it is on Long Island and he testified that same is comparable, not less, than the cost of living on Long Island. The Father was asked if M.T.M. is getting bullied at school and on the bus, and he testified that “there have been a couple instances.” Respondent’s Exhibit J was entered into evidence which is a photograph from the parties’ engagement party in Maryland in 2010. The Father testified that he did not recall meeting Justin S., the Mother’s current husband, but conceded Mr. S. appears in the background of the photo. He agreed that the Mother had told him that she’s known Mr. S. for some 30 years, since high school. The Father testified that he was aware that the Mother had had a very bad car accident in March of 2023 and that she was in the hospital for some time, he did not recall how long. The Father did not recall a specific time in 2020 that the Mother got Covid. On cross-examination the Father testified that the Mother emailed him and reminded him to get tickets to the “Sweetheart Dance” at L.J.M.’s school. He testified that he does not include his attendance at the children’s sporting events and activities in his calculation of his exercised parenting time. The Father was asked on cross-examination if he had 91 overnights with the children in 2020 out of 365 days, and he testified that he disagreed with that number. He was asked if he had 104 overnights with the children in 2021 out of 365 days, and he testified that he disagreed with that number. He testified that he had documentation to support his disagreement with those figures, specifically stating that while he doesn’t have calendars he has timestamped photographs of the children at his house at bedtime and in pajamas the following morning during times the Mother claims the children were with her overnight. At that time, he testified that he had approximately 40 photos from each year which demonstrate that the children were with him when the Mother claimed they were with her. The Father was asked if he had 95 overnights with the children in 2022 out of 365 days, and he testified that he disagreed with that number and that he has photographs that demonstrate there are falsities in the Mother’s representations. He testified that he had had an Outlook calendar with an account held by a previous employer but that he no longer has access to said calendar. He testified that he had photographs that refute the Mother’s claims. He was asked if he had 66 overnights with the children in 2023 through October 20, 2023 and he disagreed stating that he has photographs that refute the Mother’s claims. A series of nine photographs were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit L and the Father testified that each timestamped photo represents an overnight visit that he had with the children in 2020 as they depict the children in the evening and then again the next morning. The Father testified that the photographs are screenshots of each photograph with a timestamp. A series of six photographs were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit M and the Father testified that each timestamped photo represents an overnight visit that he had with the children in 2021 as they depict the children in the evening and then again the next morning. The Father testified that the photographs are screenshots of each photograph with a timestamp. A series of ten photographs were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit N and the Father testified that each timestamped photo represents an overnight visit that he had with the children in 2022 as they depict the children in the evening and then again the next morning. A series of eight photographs were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit O and the Father testified that each timestamped photo represents an overnight visit that he had with the children in 2023 as they depict the children in the evening and then again the next morning. It was conceded by the Father upon further inquiry that not every photo included in Respondent’s Exhibits L through O has a corresponding photograph from early the next morning. The Father testified that he was unemployed from April 11, 2023 through October 26, 2023. He testified that some of his overnight parenting time was during vacation periods and some of those periods were spent with his parents in Maryland. The Father was asked if he’s always exercised his holiday overnight parenting time since the 2016 Stipulation and he testified that he was unable to think of any time that he has not done so. The Father testified that he had a seizure in 2019 and that the children were present for same as they were in a hotel in Pennsylvania. He confirmed that the seizure was connected to a prior stroke he had had, and that following the seizure he went back on Kepra, an anti-seizure medication. He testified that he also has a history of ulcerative colitis. The Father testified that since the incident in Massachusetts in February of 2023 he has not consumed alcohol in the presence of the children. He testified that he has taken Kepra for the last ten years except for a two-year period when he was off the medication. He testified that he has spoken to doctors about consuming alcohol while taking Kepra and he stated that as far as he is aware there is no physiological effect of consuming alcohol while taking Kepra. The Father testified that the Mother has brought up his consumption of alcohol prior to the February 2023 incident, and that he has had conversations about it with M.T.M.. He testified that the Mother had indicated to him that M.T.M., in particular, had concerns about his drinking alcohol. He agreed that if the children express such a concern he should take it seriously and be mindful of their concerns. He conceded that prior to February of 2023 he had consumed alcohol in front of the children despite prior conversations with the Mother about the issue. On continued cross-examination by the Mother’s attorney various text message exchanges between the parties were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibits P 1 through 19. The exhibits include an exchange from October 31, 2020 through November 1, 2020 wherein the Mother indicates to the Father that M.T.M. had concerns about his drinking and the Father acknowledges same. The Father testified that he did not believe it was an issue at the time. Included in the same series of text messages was a discussion between the parties about a therapist for M.T.M. and the Father testified that, as reflected in the text exchange, in November of 2020 he did not believe M.T.M. needed a therapist though he acknowledged that M.T.M. presently sees Dr. Abreu. In another text message exchange in the series that constituted Respondent’s Exhibit P, dated May 15, 2021, the Mother again instructs the Father not to “get drunk with the children today” and notes M.T.M.’s concerns about the Father “getting tired around 10 p.m.” and the Father responded “Okay.” Another text exchange dated April 21, 2022 includes the Mother informing the Father about M.T.M.’s concerns about his drinking at an Orioles game and the Father responded that the Mother should tell M.T.M. he understands his concerns. The Father testified that he is “always a responsible adult around my son” and that the issue of his drinking was “an ongoing conversation again with his mother, and at the time an eight-year-old child.” In another exchange dated May 16, 2022 the Mother stated that the children were upset that they were at a block party with the Father and “because you got drunk and they lost you and needed to go to the bathroom” and the Father responded that “Once again I’m tired of the manipulative speak. Please get your facts straight before accusing me. I had one beer at the block party. All evenings [sic]. I had the kids in sight the whole time. I didn’t get drunk and lose them. They were running around the whole time on bounce houses and other kids’ big wheels/cars.” Respondent’s Exhibit P-14 was a text message exchange pertaining to the February 24, 2023 incident in Massachusetts. Therein, the Mother inquires as to whether the Father would be taking the children to a brewery and requests confirmation that the driver will not be drinking. The Father replied that his wife would be driving and later indicates that they would be taking an Uber per the Mother’s request. The Father testified that the Mother and her father then came to pick up the children, and that he slipped on the side of the house after the children got into the car. In another text exchange, in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit P-15 dated March 14, 2023 the Mother again notes M.T.M.’s concerns about the Father’s drinking and the Father responds that he will talk to him. He testified that the four of them had a group discussion about in April of 2023. The Father testified that he has not consumed alcohol in the presence of the children since. In another text message exchange dated May 12, 2023, in evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit P-19, the Mother states that “M.T.M. told me you got drunk last night and you lied to him” and the Father responded “wow, I got in my own hot tub after the kids were asleep and had a few beers. I’m not drinking now. I am not drinking tonight. We have a game in 30 minutes.” The Father, upon inquiry, agreed that there was an occasion on September 22, 2023 when M.T.M. refused to get in the car with him “because of concerns” that he was drunk. On continued cross by the Mother’s attorney, the Father testified that on January 29, 2024 the children were in his care and L.J.M. stayed home from school but that the parties had had a court mediation appointment so his wife took L.J.M. to urgent care and he notified the Mother a few hours after the fact. Text messages entered into evidence indicated that the Father sent the Mother a text message at 10:30 that morning, which he testified was “an hour after school started when I deemed her sick and not going to school.” He further testified that he feels the children’s current school is sufficiently meeting the children’s needs, and that he and the Mother had “briefly” discussed private schools “several years back, early conversations.” On continued cross-examination the Father was asked about the Mother’s March 2023 car accident, and he testified that while she was hospitalized the Mother’s family stayed at the Mother’s house and cared for the children during some of the time she was in the hospital. Upon inquiry he stated that he agreed that as of March of 2023 M.T.M. needed therapy. The Father further testified that he took the children to Maryland for Christmas in 2021, and during the second week of July 2022, and during President’s Day weekend in February 2023, and for a baptism in June of 2023. The Father testified that the children have a close relationship with the maternal grandparents and a close relationship with the Mother. When asked about her strengths as a parent, the Father testified that “I think she does a good job broadening their minds and showing them different experiences and taking them different place…I think she shows them good family values on her side of the family.” He testified that he believes the children would be better off in his custody and that the children would be happy about it over time but that such a change would be a shock. When asked, he agree that the Mother has provided “parental support, encouragement, love and affection.” Upon further cross-examination by the children’s attorney, the Father was asked why he didn’t believe the Mother is a good parent and he stated that “I think she’s brainwashed the children to fear me, to feel uneasy around me, to feel that they are not fed, to feel that I am not in control, to feel that I have medical issues that aren’t there instead of empowering the children to find comfort in the other parent. I feel like that’s what a good co-parent does.” The children’s attorney asked the Father about his drinking in 2020 and he testified that he was drinking “socially” including when the children were present but denied that there was ever an occasion when he drank “too much” with the children present. He testified that there were no occasions when he drank too much in the presence of the children in 2021, 2022, 2023 or 2024. He was asked about the day of the incident in Massachusetts and testified that he had not been drinking that day. He further testified that after they had a family meeting about his drinking in front of the children in April of 2023 he has not drank in front of the children. He was asked by the children’s attorney “You would agree with me, sir, wouldn’t you, that M.T.M. is probably over anxious about your drinking?” and he agreed. He testified that he has had three or four conversations with M.T.M. wherein he has told him, in sum and substance, that “you are clearly anxious and worried. I want you to know that you’re always safe with me, you and your sister are my number one priority, and because this is a worry of yours, I am not going to do it anymore when you’re around.” The Father testified that he has spoken with M.T.M.’s therapist about ways to alleviate M.T.M.’s anxiety and he testified that he has learned “showing him consistency, and I have not drank around him in a long time.” The Father was asked about a recording device that M.T.M. found in his bedroom at the Father’s house and he testified that he had purchased it for work to record sales pitches and easily play them back and that he left it on top of the desk as he sometimes works from M.T.M.’s room when he is working from home. He testified that the device went missing before he ever used it and that he believes it is at the Mother’s house. He testified that he is aware that M.T.M. talks to his mother from that room and sometimes has virtual therapy sessions from that room, but that he has never listened to any such conversations and that he believes M.T.M. is old enough to understand that such would be a violation of his privacy. The Father testified that the Mother had told him on October 7, 2023 that she wished to move to Maryland at the end of the 2023-2024 school year. He testified that he was given the proposed new address at some point, but that he has had no conversation with the Mother about where the children might attend school in Maryland. He testified that he has not spoken with the children about Maryland at all as he is careful not to “talk too much about this legal proceeding, knowing that any sort of change would really affect them” specifically “moving four states away from everything they know.” Regarding the alleged bullying issue, the Father testified that he had initially heard about the issue from other local mothers whose children were identified by the Mother in a DASA complaint filed about issues on the bus pertaining to both children. He testified that he then spoke with the principal to get information and that the DASA complaints were ultimately deemed unfounded. The Father testified that the children have many friends at school and that he knows their friends because he has “coordinated the kids’ birthday parties over the last several years. I coached them in sports…the kids tell me about who they are playing with at recess on the days, so after a while you kind of, you hear the same names over and over.” The Father was asked about M.T.M. calling the Mother to say that he’s hungry and the Father testified that “I have heard their mother Jessi for years tell the children in front of me, make sure dad feeds you, and I don’t know where that comes from, but I have never not provided my kids food. I think it goes back to my earlier point that she strikes sort of an unnecessary fear in them when they are with me.” On re-direct, a litany of photographs was entered into evidence. Petitioner’s Exhibit 32, 1 through 57, were photos the Father testified were taken in 2020. Petitioner’s Exhibit 33, 1 through 23, were photos the Father testified were taken in 2021. Petitioner’s Exhibit 34, 1 through 25, were photos the Father testified were taken in 2022. Petitioner’s Exhibit 35, 1 through 17, were photos the Father testified were taken in 2023. The Father testified that the photos, all of which were timestamped, represented dates when the Mother’s calendars indicate that the children were with her, but in fact the children were with him. On voir dire, it was noted that the photos cannot confirm that the children remained with the Father overnight on each of these occasions but depicted time he spent with them during the day. The Father testified that several of the photos show the children in their pajamas at his house either at night or in the morning which he stated would indicate that they remained with him overnight. This concluded the Father’s testimony. Witness: Mother, Jessica P.: The Mother testified as her own witness. She testified that during February break of 2023 the children were with the Father in Great Barrington Massachusetts, and that she had been there skiing with the children for three days prior to exchanging the children with the Father. She testified that when she left she went to upstate New York. She stated that before she had left the children with the Father, that she and the Father had discussed a “list of worries” which she states was a list of concerns that the children had including the sleeping arrangements at the house where he was taking the children and their interactions with the Father’s girlfriend. She stated that, in her opinion, the house where they were staying was too small for the number of people staying there, and that the house was his girlfriend’s house. She testified that one of the concerns was the Father’s excessive drinking which she states has been an issue “forever, since we had children.” She stated that the Father’s response was “Okay” and that there would be appropriate sleeping arrangements and he wouldn’t drink with the children. The Mother testified that since the Father has moved to Massapequa and had begun bringing the children to his friends’ parties that she has had to pick up the children from parties on many occasions because the Father has drank excessively. She referenced three Halloween parties and two Memorial Day parties which she had also attended, having been invited, and stated that she, on each occasion, later informed the host that she was uncomfortable at the party with the Father and that she would come pick up the children if necessary. She testified that on other occasions she has received “frantic phone calls” from the children, and that since they have been in Massapequa she has observed the Father drinking during his parenting time “more than twenty” times. She testified that on some of these occasions she brought the children to see the Father during Covid, or during the children’s birthday parties, at the aforementioned community parties, and during Father’s Day on the beach in 2021 when he brought beers to the beach. She testified that when he drinks she observes him to speak slower, to have a “short attention span for the children” and start slurring his words. The Mother testified that she’s aware the Father takes the anti-seizure medication Kepra, and that she has seen him drinking during the time he’s been prescribed Kepra. She testified that she had had conversations with the Father pertaining to his drinking and driving with the children. She testified that he was not allowed to drive the children for six months to one year after he had a seizure. During that time, the Mother testified that she would sometimes drive the children and they also had a nanny at the time. The Mother testified that she had received a call from M.T.M. on the morning of the February incident regarding the Father’s drinking. She testified that she then had a text exchange with the Father wherein she told him that it was her understanding they were going to go to a brewery and that if he were to drink and drive with the children she would call the police. She testified that the Father said that his wife would be driving, and when she reiterated that no one should be drinking and driving with the children, that he said they would take an Uber. The Mother testified that she later received text messages and phone calls from the children from the brewery regarding the Father’s drinking. Regarding the February 6, 2023 incident, the Mother testified that she had received a call from M.T.M. that morning around 8:00 a.m. and she told him she would speak with the Father and told him to call her back and tell her how he was. She testified that M.T.M. called her that evening and she told him that she would speak with the Father and that if he felt that he couldn’t trust his Father to go ask the bartender for help. She testified that she heard from L.J.M. shortly thereafter and that she asked to speak with the Father but that he kept hanging up on her. She stated that she tried calling him more than ten times, texted him and called several local taxis because he had said that his girlfriend had left them at the restaurant. She testified that she had gotten in touch with someone to pick them up and texted the information to the Father. The Mother stated that she then received a call from her Father and she went to his house. The Mother testified that she and her father then drove to Massachusetts to get the children. She testified that she had texted the children to tell them she was coming to get them but did not call them or speak with them on the phone. She testified that the ride was about an hour and fifteen minutes and that during the drive she had spoken with the Father. She stated that the Father said it was not necessary to come get the children, and the Mother told him that both children had called her father directly, so she was coming to get them. She testified that initially led the Father to believe that her father was coming alone to make it simple and so that the Father wouldn’t attempt to “twist the truth so it would be in his favor and make him look better.” When they arrived, the Mother testified that she got out of the car and her father remained, and she went up the driveway to meet the children and gave them hugs. The children were carrying their overnight things and their iPads, and she stated that she saw them walk toward her. She testified that she observed the Father to be “unstable and slow and he fell in the bushes.” When the children got in the car the Mother testified that they were “relieved and hungry.” She testified that she had told the Father that she wanted all of the children’s belongings including their ski equipment and their winter coats, but he did not turn those things over to her. She stated that she had had to buy the children new winter coats the next day and that then the Father had given the items back a few days later. The Mother testified that she provided food to the Father’s house every time the children have been with the Father since he’s moved to Massapequa because it made the children feel more comfortable. She testified that sometimes he would go to her house and take food from the refrigerator which they had always discussed previously. She testified that prior to the court proceedings he had never complained about her providing food. She stated that during Covid she had also brought toilet paper, school supplies and various other items after the Father had indicated he didn’t have certain items and that he was thankful. The Mother testified that when the Father would travel with the children he would request certain items that she had for them and she would pack them up and that sometimes the items would come back. She testified that prior to the court proceedings he would send her a list of clothing items and other things for her to provide and she would provide it. Regarding the parenting time schedule, the Mother testified that immediately following their divorce the Father was living in Manhattan and she was living in Manhattan when the children were 1 and 2 years old. While they were in Manhattan the Mother testified that the children lived with her and occasionally if she had a work conflict he would take the kids but most of the time the nanny would stay at her house until she got home from work. She stated that the Father only objected to this arrangement once when he was dating a girl from Maryland who came to New York and he requested to have the children, that she had offered to let him have the children for the week and he only utilized one day. During that time period, she testified that she did not recall any time the Father had the children in his apartment, but that he would take the children on vacations with his parents. She stated that he would meet them at Kidville or at parks. She testified that while they were living in Manhattan the Father had stated that he had wanted to move to Maryland “to be with the love of his life” who lived in Maryland. When she was looking to leave Manhattan, the Mother testified that she had looked in New Jersey, Westchester, and various other places and that the Father had wanted her to move closer to Maryland. She stated that she was working for her same employer, Ernst & Young, at the time and that her home office has been in Virginia since 2019. The last time her work team was based in New York was 2017. The Mother testified that her position is Senior Manager, and that if she moved to the Maryland area that she would have more access to her technology leadership, to attend events, and to meet with a lot of people for her “business case” to make a “campaign” to seek partnership with the company. She testified that she is not currently a partner but that her goal would be to make partner because it would be a significant increase in compensation and the partner benefits are “significantly better” than employee benefits including the “partner pension” and “support for your family.” She testified that the Father currently owes “about $120,000.00″ in back child support. The Mother testified that while living in Manhattan she was a Manager at her company, and the Father worked in “institutional equity sales.” While she was living in Manhattan, the Mother testified that she had started working from home after the divorce and that she would work from the business center in her apartment building and would work from home four days a weeks and go into the office once a week, and that once or twice a year a client would come into New York and they’d meet. While she was working, she testified that the children would be with the nanny. During this time, she testified that the Father was at work or at the hospital for “procedures.” She testified that the Father was unable to drive for a period of time before Covid but after they had moved to Massapequa. Regarding her moving to Massapequa, the Mother testified that the Father did not wish for the Mother to move there and wanted her to move close to Maryland. She stated that she bought her house in May of 2017 and moved in in July of 2017. She testified that the Father had moved to Point Lookout in 2018 and then to Long Beach in May of 2018. When the Father was in Point Lookout, she testified that she would bring the children to Point Lookout and she would stay there with them. She testified that the children lived with her and the Father would have them on weekends here and there, but she cannot recall a full weekend that he had had them. She testified that the Father had never slept at her house to have parenting time with the children. She testified that the Father would to her house while she wasn’t there to get things for the children. When the Father moved to Massapequa in May of 2019, the Mother testified that there was no formal parenting time arrangement but that the children were always with her and the Father would take them maybe one night during the week and maybe one weekend a month as the Father would visit his parents frequently. She testified that that arrangement was the same until the beginning of this court case. The Mother testified that his statement that he had the children approximately 50 percent of the time was a lie. She testified that many of the photographs that the Father entered into evidence were photos taken by her that she had sent to him, and that the photographs are from random times and random days. She stated that she was in some of the photographs and she testified that they do not support his claim that he had more overnights with the children than she claimed. The Mother testified that her plan is to move to Maryland with the children prior to the commencement of the 2024-2025 school year. She testified that the children are being bullied at school, on the bus, and at extracurricular activities. She testified that both children are in the Magnet program in the Massapequa school district where they are given the opportunity to learn in a small group on Fridays with other exceptional students. In Maryland, the Mother testified that the children could be in a smaller school with more “student-led learning” to challenge them and to give them “more opportunities to excel their education.” The Mother testified that she looked at the Key School, the Severn School, St. Mary’s in Annapolis, Eastport Elementary and St. Anne’s School of Annapolis. She testified that the Key School is “very supportive of creativity and independence and they don’t offer grades.” She stated that the Severn School is “set up more like a college atmosphere.” The Mother testified that her cousins had gone to St. Anne’s School as do her husband’s children, and they have friends who work there. She stated that the St. Anne’s School is similar to a Montessori school which “fits their personalities” because the children are “curious and love learning and education is important to them” that they have lots of extracurricular events in terms of “art and physical activity and learning.” At St. Anne’s, the Mother testified that the children get to vote on which elective classes come in each semester which gives them the opportunity to be independent and choose. The Mother testified that she settled on St. Anne’s School because it’s a private school, Christian but not specifically religious, that it’s a small school that values science, technology and math, that they do semester-long projects which gives the children an opportunity to dive deep into different subjects. She testified that she spent time with the head of the school and met some of the students. Regarding the alleged “bullying” issue the Mother testified that the children are in the Banana Splits program, that M.T.M. talks to his therapist about it and that she has spoken with the principal, the assistant principal, the school social worker, the teachers, and the bus driver and that this issue has been “ongoing for multiple years.” The Mother testified that “the parents are now targeting me” and that, specifically, a mother at a lacrosse game came up “to scream in my face about my children.” The Mother testified that, on one occasion she had to travel to Mexico for a work trip and had her mother come down and watch the children. She testified that she had reached out to the Father and didn’t hear back from him, so she asked her mother and cousin to come down and watch them. She testified that she didn’t hear back from the Father until she was already at the airport and her mother and cousin had already traveled 8 hours by trains to Massapequa and were with the children when she heard back from the Father. As to extracurricular activities, the Mother testified that the children no longer play T-ball, soccer, baseball or volleyball. She testified that they’re currently in a summer basketball team and L.J.M. still plays lacrosse. She testified that the Father doesn’t coach any of their current sports. The Mother testified that she had L.J.M. talk with local Maryland lacrosse players and had her try out with two Maryland lacrosse teams, and that she liked one over the other. She testified that if they relocate L.J.M. will “continue with club lacrosse” in which she was already enrolled, that if she attends St. Anne’s School she’ll continue with school lacrosse in fifth grade which starts in fifth grade there, that she’ll start with a field hockey camp, and that both children can continue with karate and basketball. She testified that the children met the owner of the karate school in Maryland and that L.J.M. has played lacrosse in Maryland. The Mother testified that she informed the Father about same by advising him that L.J.M. had to be in Maryland on certain dates for club lacrosse tryouts. The Mother testified that she first mentioned relocation to the Father on October 7, 2023 and that at that point she hadn’t told the children anything about it because it was “really far in advance” and that she had wanted to speak with the Father about it first. It was noted that the parties’ Judgment of Divorce requires them to seek the assistance of a mediator before initiating a court proceeding. In response to her initial email, the Mother testified that the Father responded by stating that “I had until end of day on October 15th to confirm that I will not move with the children or he’ll seek legal action.” The Mother testified that she had taken L.J.M. on a work trip and that she participated in a “Hack-athon” where children were given a prompt and had 3 days to utilize technology to solve a problem and she really enjoyed it. She testified that L.J.M. is interested in coding, uses “Scratch Junior” and home and built her own video game, that she and the children use “Little bits” and they have built robots and droids, fans, automatic drawing machines, that they do science experiments at home with chemistry and physics. She testified that M.T.M. takes Italian lessons one day a week at home. She testified that whenever the children don’t have a conflict with a school or sports event that they’re traveling and that she frequently takes the children to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, the Bronx Zoo, the Central Park Zoo, the Queens Zoo, that they love the New York Philharmonic and orchestras. She testified that they’ve been to children’s museums in any city they visit, that they love the Coney Island Aquarium and that they have a membership there, that they’ve visited the Smithsonian Museum in D.C., that they’re currently enrolled in an engineering and ecosystem camp with the Annapolis Maritime Museum. She testified that, to her knowledge, the Father has not engaged the children in any similar activities. Regarding travel to Maryland, she testified that when she’s traveling alone or with the children that they fly, and the flight takes approximately 38 minutes from Islip to Baltimore Washington International. She testified that she has taken Amtrak to BWI and that the trip from Penn Station is about two hours and 15 minutes. Depending on traffic, she testified that the drive is approximately four hours. The Mother testified that the cost for the train depends when you book it and it’s less if you plan in advance. She testified that on Southwest if you book more than 21 days in advance its “like $59 a flight” from Islip to BWI. The Mother testified that her current residence is a 3 bedroom split-level house compared to her anticipated residence in Maryland which is much larger, 8 bedrooms and 6.5 bathrooms with a library, a dedicated office, and a plan to put in a pool. Regarding the communities the Mother testified that the house in Annapolis is walking distance to the library, the Annapolis Maritime Museum, the historic downtown and various historic sites, art galleries, museums and restaurants. The Mother testified that the first time the children saw the house where Justin lives “just after Christmas maybe” and that they brought the children to the new house in Annapolis on New Year’s Eve. She testified that she told the children that Justin lives in Maryland and then after they got married she told them that “if everything works out and the court approves it” that they would be living in Maryland. She testified that the children had asked her about it and before that she hadn’t said anything to them about it. The Mother testified that the children have cousins in Maryland and that her best friend from college lives nearby. She testified that the Father’s sister and her two children live in Maryland. She testified that the Father’s parents and college friends and friends from growing up all live in Maryland and that since they’ve been living in Massapequa the Father has taken the children to Maryland at least four to seven times a year and that he’s traveled there without the children more than that. The Mother testified that neither of the parties have relatives in the vicinity of Massapequa. She testified that the children have no friends that they regularly hang out with in Massapequa but that they have “approximately ten” close friends or cousins that they hang out with in Maryland. The Mother testified that the children have spent overnights with friends in Maryland, Connecticut and Virginia but not in Massapequa. Regarding the prior testimony that she bad-mouths the Father to the children the Mother testified that that’s a lie and that its her right as a mother to ask the children if they’re hungry or if they’ve eaten. She testified that she heard the Father’s wife on the date of Amelia’s first communion party when she went to pick up the children and heard his wife say “I wouldn’t trust that woman with any child.” She testified that she never addressed this with the Father. The Mother testified that during the time period that she was in the hospital she prepared a schedule of the children’s activities and where they had to be and provided it to her parents and the Father. The Mother testified that the parties Judgment of Divorce states that the parenting schedule is subject to “the current schedule and the needs and desires of the children.” During the pendency of the instant litigation, the Mother testified that the parenting schedule has changed because “now he demands 50 percent each month a month in advance” and that he has never had close to 50 percent of the time. The Mother testified that when the children are going to go for an extended period of time with their Father they are “agitated, worried, nervous.” She stated that “they love going for one or two nights but when it starts getting longer than that it’s when you see the change” and that they “need time to decompress and they argue the first few hours a lot” when they return. The Mother testified that prior to the instant proceedings, on an annual basis the Father has had the children “approximately 20 percent of overnights” with the children but that sometimes she would feed them dinner before they went. She testified that prior to the proceedings that the Father would request parenting time before the week started or if he was traveling with the children or his parents were coming to visit he’d schedule it ahead of time. On an average week the Mother testified that the Father would have “maybe one” overnight during the week except during the second half of 2022 when his work schedule prevented him from exercising midweek overnights. She testified that in 2023 the Father took the children for a full Friday to Sunday “once every six weeks” and Saturday to Sunday “probably more often…maybe once or twice a month.” When asked about the Father’s strengths as a parent the Mother testified that “I think he loves the kids and he wants to see them do well. I think he wants to see them exceed at school and sports.” Since they’ve been in Massapequa, the Mother testified that the Father has asked for her help in educating the children during Covid, and that he has asked for food for the children, for their clothing and athletic equipment, for winter coats, ski equipment, to send them with supplies, and to take them to the doctor. The Mother stated that she believes she is loving, she cares about them, that she tries to educate them based on their interests and provides them with educational challenges and exposure to cultures and experiences and adventures. She stated that she and the children are very close. The Mother testified that at one point she got Covid in August of 2022 and that the Father was unable to take the children because he was in D.C. The Mother testified that M.T.M. is in therapy with Dr. Luis Abreu since April of 2023. She testified that it was the Mother’s decision to enroll M.T.M. in therapy, that the Father was resistant at first and wanted to find one in person, but he never did so she enrolled M.T.M.. She testified that M.T.M. sees Dr. Abreu once a week, and that he had missed a few appointments at the start of the instant proceedings “when Trevor was demanding more child time.” When asked about the Father’s faults as a parent, the Mother testified that he “thinks of himself before the children,” that he “places a high emphasis on external perception, how people view him and his children.” As to herself, the Mother testified that she “could probably let them struggle a bit more with some things to learn” and that she feels that they shouldn’t have to struggle with “feeling safe or secure or being hungry or afraid.” If she were permitted to relocate, the Mother testified that her suggested parenting arrangement for the Father would be “really similar to what he had before the trial started…one weekday a week and one weekend a month and if that doesn’t work for his work schedule, one weekend a month and extended holidays.” She testified that he could have all 3-day weekends, and that the Father could have the children for school recesses like Spring Break. For summer the Mother testified that “I guess every other week counting his two-week trip to Michigan” and “if he wanted an extended trip with them and they were interested.” She proposes that “he could have the one two-week trip but otherwise I would stick to one week…like if he wanted to rotate weeks.” Regarding the cost of travel to New York the Mother testified that “I’m willing to pay for them to travel back to Long Island four times a year and go with them.” When asked if she would take that proposed schedule if she relocated without the children she said she would not. Regarding economic enhancement, the Mother testified that she would sell her house in Massapequa at a really great time to sell because it’s worth double what she paid for it right now, and she would be closer to the partner leadership that she works for and would have greater access and a “stronger business case” and greater ability to see clients on a more regular basis and attend tech events. She stated that this would benefit the children because “it would add to my case for partnership” and that “my compensation would be higher and they would have more opportunities” that she “would love them to travel more internationally” that they could go to private school which is more expensive and “to live in one household with my husband instead of two leaves more income available for use to support the children.” She testified that St. Anne’s is a private school and that she would be willing to pay for the private school in Maryland. The Mother was asked, repeatedly, how she has tried to foster a relationship between the children and the Father she stated that “they have been able to invite him over to my house, they go to his house, they see him at events and I’ve encouraged them to share their feelings with him so that he could try to understand their perceptions.” She testified that she has shared the children’s “worries” with their Father and shared “strategies that he could use to make them feel safe” and more comfortable around his new wife and his new stepchild. She testified that she had advised M.T.M. to “not argue” with the Father and his new wife and to “acknowledge what they say and attempt to share his perspective” and that if either of the children have concerns that they should tell their dad. The Mother testified that a relocation to Maryland will be emotionally beneficial to the children because “it will be a relief for the children to have a more clearly defined schedule and to have more focused time from [the Father] and to be ready for the parenting time that [the Father] has.” The Mother testified that there were no issues with their schedule up and until she mentioned relocating to Maryland. She stated that she believes that it’s in the children’s best interest to “live in a calm, safe environment, to have access to a great school and family and friends, easier access to travel and what’s good for my career is good for the children.” She testified that she became engaged to Justin in October of 2023 and that the Father became engaged to his wife in April of 2023. At the time the Father got engaged she testified that she had just come out of the hospital and that she had to learn to walk and read again and that it was challenging everyday and the children “were recovering from the incident at my house” and that the Father had called the children to announce his engagement when they were about to leave for school and they had a “difficult reaction” and “a lot of follow-up” was needed. The Mother testified that when the Father told her he was going to propose that they had a conversation with both of them and the children because “it was something unexpected” and that there were “a lot of discussions after” including with M.T.M.’s therapist. The Mother testified that she got married six weeks after the Father did. She testified that she had known her husband for over 30 years and that before they were romantically involved they were very good friends, and that her husband and the children have a great relationship. The Mother testified that she had met Oliver S. “a lot when he was little” in the time Justin had been separated from his ex-wife. She further testified that she has been concerned for her personal safety as a result of the proceedings and has had to contact a criminal attorney with regard to issues that have arisen with Oliver S. and his mother. Regarding the children’s medical care, the Mother testified that she carries the children’s medical and dental insurance and that she has taken the children to doctor appointments, and recently she has sought second opinions with regard to L.J.M.’s eye issues and her broken finger. Specifically, the Mother testified that L.J.M. was given glasses and an eye patch was recommended for her “good eye” to “even out” her eyes so she brought her to a neuro-ophthalmologist and now L.J.M. has “prism glasses” and is able to wear contacts to play sports. The Mother testified that the Father had sent L.J.M. to sports at times without glasses, and that the Father has not been present at L.J.M.’s eye doctor appointments. She testified that she provided the Father with detailed information about all of those appointments. The Mother testified that the Father has informed her after the fact about medical issues he’s addressed for the children and that its “very difficult to get any information from him.” She testified that recently L.J.M. came home from the Father’s home with a welt “larger than a softball” on her “right butt cheek” and that the Father had not addressed it, so she took L.J.M. to the doctor and used prescribed cream to treat the issue. The Mother testified that L.J.M. returned from a trip to Punta Cana with the Father with a rash all over her body that the Father had not told her about, and that she used “her typical medicated creams and coconut oil and cleaned her with an oatmeal bath.” She testified that historically she has addressed all of the children’s medical and educational needs, that she has been responsible for their education as it pertains to “the arts” and that both she and the Father have dealt with their sporting activities. She testified that prior to the legal proceedings she attended “almost all” of the children’s sporting events other than the times she’s traveled for work. Upon continued direct examination by her attorney, the Mother testified that for the years 2020 through 2023 the Father had the children “16 to 19 percent of the time. Less than 20 percent.” She further testified that from 2017 through 2020 the Father had the children overnight “eight to ten percent” of the time. The Mother then testified that prior to the commencement of the instant proceedings, that not including vacations the Father had the children overnight “eight to ten percent of the time.” The Mother testified that during a trip the Father took to Michigan with the children from June 26, 2024 to July 6, 2024 that the children had called her by video chat and that M.T.M. had found a nearly empty vodka bottle under the Father’s bed during the call. She stated that she had texted the Father to tell him her concerns and noted the vodka bottle, and that the Father had initially responded that she was making things up and denied the bottle was his. The text messages were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit W during a brief rebuttal testimony from the Father wherein the Father states “I didn’t notice it until now. It doesn’t belong to anyone in the household. Several other families use the lakehouse. I spoke to the kids. Thanks for your concern.” Photographs taken by the Mother during the video call were entered into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit T. One photo depicts the children hugging and the Mother testified that immediately prior to that photo she had told that “that they needed to rely on each other, they’re one team, and they can help each other get through this.” The Mother testified that the Father also took the children to Mexico from August 2nd to August 9th of 2024 and that she had packed some of M.T.M.’s clothing for the trip. The Mother testified that she has seen the S. children, specifically Violet and Scarlett, approximately ten times since July 29th and had seen Oliver twice. She testified that she was present for one overnight visit with them, and M.T.M. and L.J.M. were present for same as well. On cross-examination the Mother testified that she obtained a copy of the school calendar from the St. Anne’s School in Maryland but never sent it to the Father nor could she recall having any conversation about that school with the Father. She further testified that she had met with the school admissions director and “communicated the critical details of this custody and relocation trial” and that she filled our admissions applications for the children for the St. Anne’s school, and did so without having any discussions with the Father. She stated that she felt that was appropriate as she has not made any final decisions. She testified that M.T.M. and L.J.M. are both in the Magnet program in the Massapequa school district. On cross-examination by the children’s attorney, the Mother testified that in addition to filling out admissions forms, both M.T.M. and L.J.M. had taken an admissions exam. She testified that she believes the tuition for St. Anne’s is $25,000.00 per year per child. When asked if she would seek a contribution toward that tuition from the Father if she were permitted to relocate she stated “I don’t know at this time.” The Mother was asked on cross-examination why she told the children that they were to rely on each other when they were with the Father and she agreed that she believes they cannot rely on the Father. She testified that she feels it’s appropriate that she continues to send food to the Father’s house during his parenting time in spite of his recent protestations to same. When asked about her career path on cross-examination the Mother testified that she is a senior manager for Ernst & Young and that the next step in career path would be partner. When asked if it would be impossible for her to reach partner status if she remained in New York she stated that “I don’t have any co-workers or bosses that are based in New York, so yes, based on the business case.” On further cross-examination the Mother testified that during the pendency of the instant proceedings she had purchased a dog for the children which is kept in Maryland. On re-direct she testified that she had purchased the dog at the “end of June, beginning of July maybe.” The Mother testified that she had L.J.M. try out for two different Maryland lacrosse teams and that she did not notify the Father as to how those tryouts went. She testified that the Father had had L.J.M. try out for Team 91 and that he did not tell her the status of those tryouts. The Mother testified that she and her husband Mr. S. jointly own their property in Maryland that was purchased for approximately $1.8 million. She testified that she purchased the inn in Maryland with Mr. S. on November 7th or 9th of 2023 and that same is owned by an LLC owned by Mr. S. and herself. She testified that they started looking for houses in Maryland in “October, around the same time I told [the Father] I was considering” moving. She testified that she also owns a half interest in a property upstate along with her mother, and that she owns her home in Massapequa. The Mother testified that if her application for relocation were denied, she would remain in Massapequa with the children. On cross-examination by the children’s attorney, the Mother testified that when the parties initially moved out of Manhattan that the Father had wanted them to both move “as close to Maryland as possible” but that she did not want to move to Maryland both for work purposes and because “I didn’t think it was appropriate at that time to move my children to be close to a girl that [the Father] had been dating for a few weeks.” The Mother testified that, if she were to relocate to Maryland, that an alternating weekend schedule would depend “on where [the Father] was with the kids” and that “given [the Father's] historical travel to Maryland” alternating weekends would be appropriate. She testified that she would be willing to pay for and fly with the children four weekends a year. She testified that when she filled out the admissions forms for St. Anne’s school she used the address of the former inn she owns in Maryland, and that she believed the form did not ask for the Father’s address. On re-direct examination of the Mother by her own attorney she was asked why, since the commencement of the instant proceedings had she agree to give the Father the approximate 50/50 schedule to which he is entitled pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and she stated, “The legal secretary told me I was required to.” This concluded her testimony. Witness: Diane Noto Diane Noto testified as the Father’s witness. Ms. Noto testified that she was the family’s nanny for three years beginning in February of 2018. She stated that she worked Monday through Friday and would divide her time between the Mother and Father’s households and that her duties included picking up the children, getting them ready for school, making their breakfast and packing lunches, assisting with homework, taking them to their extracurricular activities and doing laundry. Ms. Noto testified that the parties followed a flexible parenting time schedule but that it would typically be “one week on, one week off” with the children spending one week with the Mother and then one week with the Father. During her time as nanny, Ms. Noto testified that M.T.M. was involved in baseball, soccer and swimming, and football at some point. She testified that M.T.M. played baseball once or twice a week, and that she would sometimes take him and sometimes the Father would take him as the Father served as coach for the team. She testified that the Father attended every one of M.T.M.’s practices, and that the Mother was there as well. Ms. Noto testified that M.T.M. participated in a virtual soccer program during Covid, which he attended from both the Mother and Father’s homes. Ms. Noto testified that L.J.M. was involved in baseball, soccer, gymnastics, and dance. During dance, Ms. Noto testified that only she would be present, and that she also did all the pickup and drop off for gymnastics. She testified that L.J.M. was involved in soccer with M.T.M. during Covid, and also participated in soccer before Covid. Pre-Covid, she testified that both parents attended L.J.M.’s soccer games and practices. Ms. Noto testified that she worked weekends once in a while — maybe five times — for the Mother. She further testified that she had never heard the Father discuss the Mother in front of the children, but that she would hear the Mother complain and say negative things about the Father in front of the children often enough that she was uncomfortable. Ms. Noto testified that before the Father would travel with the children, the Mother would express “anger in a negative way” and stated that she was “not comfortable even expressing how she would speak” and testified that she would observe that she children were upset by this. Ms. Noto testified that there had come a time when M.T.M. was having anxiety and bedwetting, that the parties discussed it and M.T.M. was enrolled in therapy which took place virtually during her last year as their nanny, when M.T.M. was in first grade. Ms. Noto testified that the parties would often accommodate each other’s schedules and that they were always helping each other with the children. She testified that for the children’s birthdays each of the parents would plan a celebration with their respective families and that both would attend a party with the child’s school friends. She testified that the children had open access to FaceTime with both parents and other family members in both houses. Ms. Noto testified that three to three and a half years ago she had been at the Mother’s house and “out of nowhere, she just screamed and told me to get the F out” and that she looked at the children, gave them hugs and told them it was okay and left. She testified that she had most recently seen the children this year “around Easter” with the Father when she was in town as she presently goes back and forth between New York and Florida. Ms. Noto testified that prior to the termination of her employment, she was aware that the Mother had complained to the Father about her work performance, which she learned from speaking with the Father as the Mother did not communicate with her. She agreed, upon inquiry on cross-examination, that her better relationship was with the Father and not the Mother, but that other than seeing the children this past Easter and for a birthday party for M.T.M., that she had not maintained regular contact with them since the termination of her employment. Ms. Noto testified that she stayed at the Mother’s house for three nights on one occasion when the Mother traveled to Dubai for work. She testified that, during the course of her employment, the Mother traveled for work maybe five times. Ms. Noto further testified that, during Covid, though both parties were working from home, she remained employed and handled most of the virtual school responsibilities for both children. Ms. Noto testified that during the week, at each house, she would be there in the morning when the children woke up, but that she was unaware as to where they slept each weekend. That concluded her testimony. Witness: Oliver S. Oliver S. testified as the Father’s witness on April 24, 2024, and stated that he is the son of Justin S., the Mother’s husband. He stated that he was 16 years old at the time of his testimony, and that he resides in Annapolis, Maryland with his mother and two sisters, Scarlett and Violet who are six and four years old, respectively. Oliver S. testified that in February of 2023 his father, Justin S., was residing in the home with him as an intact family. He testified that his father now lives in a house in Annapolis at an address unknown to him. He testified that he believes his parents are “domestic partners” but not currently married to one another. Oliver S. testified that on February 6, 2023 he was at lacrosse workouts from 3:30 to 6:15 p.m. and then his mother drove him home. He testified that Scarlett was with his grandmother at the time, and he was home with his mother and Violet when his father came home around 6:45 p.m. He stated that he heard his father arrive home, that he heard his mother go into the garage, and then he left his bedroom and went into the garage. He testified that when he went into the garage he saw his mother holding Violet and leaning against a car as his father was “choking her and kind of pushing her up against the car” with his hand on her neck. He testified that he tried separating his father from his mother by trying to get in between them but that he kept choking her. He stated that he then pushed his father, who then removed his hands from her neck, and that he jumped on his father’s back so he could get him away from his mother. He testified that his father ran with him on his back toward the driveway and then his father picked him up off his back and “body slammed” him into the ground and he landed on his back. He testified that his father then punched him four to six times in the stomach. Oliver S. testified that he recalled two other prior incidents that occurred between his mother and father, one in 2022 during summer or early fall. He stated that during this incident he heard his father’s voice yelling from the upstairs of their house and that he went upstairs and into his parents’ bedroom and saw his father yelling at his mother and “getting in her face.” He stated that he got in between them and “tried making sure nothing happened to my mom.” He stated that his father was backing up toward the bed and his father then “kind of threw me…against the bed frame” and that he hit a sharp part of the bed and cut his back. The witness testified regarding another incident that took place in 2019 when his mother was pregnant with Violet. He testified that when his father came home that day he broke through the door from the garage into the house and started pushing his mother. He testified that he tried to get in between them and his father “pushed me into the wall, I remember, really hard” and that his father was arrested following this incident. He testified on cross-examination that he was about 12 years old at the time. Regarding the parties to the instant matter, Oliver S. testified that he was aware of the Mother to the extent that he learned she was married to his father based upon his father’s social media posts. He testified that neither he nor his siblings attended the wedding. The witness testified that from February of 2023 through March of 2024 that he and his siblings had no visitation with their father, but that during the month of April 2024 they had had visits on weekends, Saturday and Sunday, so that they had eight two-hour visits in April of 2024, however he stated on cross-examination that he was only present for half of these visits as he’s had practice. He testified that the visits are supervised at his father’s house with both the paternal grandmother and a court-appointed supervisor named Rick present. He testified that he believes the Mother in this case has children but that he doesn’t know their names and hasn’t met them. On cross-examination Oliver S. testified that he had spoken to the police following the February 2023 incident and that he had told the police “all the things that my dad did.” He testified that he referred to the relationship between his mother and father as a “domestic partnership” because they weren’t married, that they had been previously married and divorced and then got back together and were living together post-divorce and unmarried. On further cross-examination Oliver S. testified that he has an Instagram account and a cellphone and that he has sent text messages to the Mother in this case. He testified that he had seen his father’s cellphone, that he looked at it on his own and saw all his father’s text messages about women other than his mother and pictures of various other women. He admitted that he had sent a message to his father stating “you picked a whore and pills over flesh and blood.” The witness explained on further cross-examination that, on February 6, 2023 the date of the incident, he had heard the door to the garage open and close after he had heard his father’s car pull into the driveway, that he exited his bedroom and his mother wasn’t in the house so he went into the garage to make sure she was okay. He stated that he did so “Because I know my dad and I know my mom. My dad, he’s really aggressive.” He further testified that on the date in question he was concerned about his father’s aggression after he closed a big business deal and “he has been really aggressive because I think he was like drinking too, and he’s probably — when he gets drunk he’s aggressive, and I just wanted to make sure my mom was okay.” He testified that when his father ran out of the garage with him on his back, and then threw him to the ground and began punching him, that his mother had put down his sister and came out of the garage and was screaming for help. He stated that when his mother screamed for help his father started to run away and got into his car and left and that his mother then called the police who arrived 15 minutes later. The witness further testified that, during the 2022 incident his father had pushed him hard in his chest and he fell back and cut his back on the bedframe. He testified that his father was arrested the night of the 2019 incident. Oliver S. testified that, following the February 2023 incident he had observed his mother’s neck and that same was really red. This concluded his testimony. Thereafter, certified copies of the hearing sheet and order of probation related to the Maryland criminal proceeding against Justin S. were entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. A memorandum and order of Judge Elizabeth Morris of the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, Maryland pertaining to custody and parenting time as it relates to Justin S.’s children was entered into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. Witness: Jennifer M. Jennifer M., the Father’s wife, testified on his behalf on May 13, 2024. Mrs. M. testified that she and the Father were married on November 11, 2023 and that they have resided together in Mr. M.’s home in Massapequa since April of 2023 along with her daughter Amelia, and with the subject children half of the time. She testified that in approximately July of 2023 that the parties had a “very fluid” parenting time schedule week to week, and that the subject children were with them consistently about half of the time. She further testified that, beginning in November or December of 2023, that their time with the subject children drastically declined from 14 or 15 nights per month to approximately 7 to 10 nights per month. Mrs. M. testified that she has never seen the Father under the influence of alcohol while in the presence of the children or while they were in his care. On cross-examination she testified that she has seen him have a beer here and there. She stated that she has been present at a lot of the children’s extracurricular activities, L.J.M. in particular as she and Amelia are the same age and are on many of the same teams and same Girl Scout troop. She testified that she had met Mr. M. at one of the girls’ soccer practices in September of 2021, and that she and the Father had coached the girls’ basketball team together for the last two years during the winter season. She further testified that the girls play lacrosse together through both the Police Athletic League and club lacrosse, and they play soccer together. Mrs. M. stated that she has also watched M.T.M. play basketball, both practices and games, and that the Father was the coach. She stated that she has also gone to watch both children do karate. Mrs. M. testified that her daughter has a relationship with her father, Donald D., and that they are subject to a court order directing that she supervise his visits with Amelia once a week. She testified that her custody order includes a relocation clause directing that she is not permitted to relocate with Amelia more than 30 miles from her prior residence which was also in Massapequa. Mrs. M. testified that she works doing marketing and web development for an entertainment company in Farmingdale, that she works in the office most of the time and works from home on Fridays. She testified that both parties have used her for childcare, and that prior to April of 2023 the Mother had used her for childcare on more than one occasion. On cross-examination she testified that she and the Mother had carpooled a bunch of times taking the girls to their shared activities. She testified that she is aware of the Father’s health issues but that there are no limitations on his ability to care for the children. She testified that that when the subject children are with them they cook together as a family, and that the Father primarily takes cares of their laundry but that it is a “mixed effort.” She testified that the subject children refer to her as “Jenni”. Mrs. M. testified that her daughter Amelia gets along really well with the subject children. She testified that she has witnessed the Father discipline the children, that he is very patient and usually pulls them aside and talks to them which resolves the issue all of the time. She testified that when the children are at their house that they are always playing games together or playing outside, that they play on the trampoline and play board games, and that the children play video games together, paint, draw, and go on excursions including a recent trip to a Lego breakfast. She testified that M.T.M. is very into Legos and that he’s filming a movie as an extracurricular activity and that they’re helping him with that. Mrs. M. testified that not once has she heard the Father say anything disparaging about the Mother or her family in the presence of the children. She testified that she has heard the Mother disparage the Father including a number of times when she has heard the Mother ask the children “if daddy remembered to feed you this time” including at one of the children’s practices. She testified that there has never been a time that the children have not been fed during the Father’s parenting time. She testified that the Mother has sent them food after they had been fed and that she’s seen follow up communication about that. Mrs. M. stated that, to her knowledge, there have never been any exchanges between the parties about sending food, that the Mother has not asked the Father if he wanted her to send food and he has not requested it. She testified that neither she nor the Father have discussed the court proceedings with any of the other parents who attend the children’s lacrosse games. Regarding the Father’s health. Mrs. M. testified on cross-examination that he takes antiseizure medication twice a day and that he has a colostomy bag that he maintains. She testified on cross-examination that her custody order regarding Amelia, issued in the Nassau County Family Court, requires Amelia’s father to have parenting time no less then every Sunday and that depending on Amelia’s availability he sees her for three or four hours for these visits. On cross-examination, Mrs. M. testified that prior to the fall of 2023 the Father had the children approximately half the time though the schedule was fluid, and that she believes he maintains a Google calendar that may track that time. She testified that on top of his overnight parenting time, that “he spends most of their waking hours outside of school together with the kids, all the extracurricular activities” and that from April of 2023 through November of 2023 he had the children for 50 percent of the overnights with his having three nights some weeks and four nights some weeks. Prior to April of 2023 she testified that she had knowledge of the time the Father spent with the children because they were in a committed relationship and their kids are best friends. On cross-examination Mrs. M. was asked about the ski trip to Massachusetts in February of 2023. She agreed, when asked, that she was aware M.T.M. became upset about “what he perceives to be his father’s conduct” and that she was at the restaurant with them at the time of the incident. She testified that she was aware that the Mother had come to pick up the children. She testified that she had left the restaurant with Amelia leaving the Father and the subject children at the restaurant. She testified that she had ordered a beer but that “when I saw the commotion, I knew better not to drink it. I saw this coming.” Mrs. M. testified that she ultimately drove the Father and the M. children back to the house from the restaurant. She testified that M.T.M.’s reaction at the restaurant was “anxious, stressed, irrational, upset.” She testified that M.T.M. is in therapy and stated that she did not believe his reaction was a result of his seeking his Father having alcohol on that date as the Father did not consume any alcohol that day. She stated that she has seen M.T.M. react this way on prior occasions, and that he has gotten upset about nothing as he did that day and that “He’s gotten upset several times without Trevor ever drinking, he’s gotten upset about Trevor drinking.” On re-direct Mrs. M.testified that she has seen the Father drink beer “like watching a game or barbecue, but not habitually,” that recently he’s not consumed alcohol at all, and throughout their relationship she’s seen him drink “maybe twice.” She testified that, during the ski trip at dinner, M.T.M. became upset right away and was crying and that “M.T.M. was seemingly convinced that Trevor was drunk.” She testified that after 20 minutes or so they ordered food and he ate and he was better, and that he was calm when she left the restaurant. She testified that she had left without the Father and the subject children “Because I had offered to drive and he didn’t want to take on Jessie’s wrath.” She stated that she returned and picked them up after the Uber had cancelled twice. She testified that once they returned to the house everybody was fine and all the kids were playing again including M.T.M.. She testified that they learned that the Mother’s father was coming to pick up the children, then the Mother arrived with her father to pick them up. She testified that, at that point, M.T.M. was packing his stuff and L.J.M. was crying because she was upset that she was leaving. This concluded her testimony. Witness: Matthew Guilliford The Mother called Matthew Guilliford as her witness, who testified that he lives in Brooklyn and is a friend of both parties, having met the Mother through a friend some 15 years ago and then having met the Father through her. He testified that he last saw the Father in approximately 2023 at the Mother’s house, and that they’ve been on vacation together three or four times. Mr. Guilliford testified that subsequent to the parties’ divorce in 2016 he had the opportunity to see the parties and the children regularly while they were living in Manhattan and that he saw both parties, primarily the Mother, parent the children are various times. He testified that he assisted the Mother in her move from Manhattan to Massapequa and that after she moved he would see her at least every other weekend, and for longer periods during Covid when he had been laid off from his job. He testified that during the “large blocks” of time he spent with the Mother during Covid that the children were with her “80 percent of the time.” He further testified that on occasions the Mother would stay with him in Manhattan or go on certain trips with him without the children. On cross-examination Mr. Guilliford testified that while the parties were in Manhattan he would see the Mother three or four times a week with the purpose being to see the children, and that the children were with her 90 percent of the time he saw her. He clarified that the “large blocks” of time he spent at the Mother’s home during Covid would be approximately usually four to five days, and also several blocks of up to two weeks at a time. He stated that he would come out to Massapequa with his husband who would return to the city for work earlier than he would as he was unemployed due to Covid until February of 2021. He testified that more recently the Mother would bring the children to the city two or three times a month and he would sometimes see them when they were in the city. That concluded his testimony. Witness: Daniel P. Daniel P., the maternal grandfather, testified on behalf of the Mother. He testified that until January of 2024 he resided in Saratoga Springs, New York, but now resides in Annapolis, Maryland with his wife Patty. Mr. P. stated that he is a restaurant owner but is currently in contract to sell the restaurant. He testified that he moved to Maryland because his son-in-law, along with his best friend and business partner, live there. He testified on cross-examination that his residence in Maryland is an apartment within a house, and that that house is owned by his son-in-law, Justin S.. He testified that he has a very close relationship with his grandchildren, the subject children, that he FaceTimes or talks with them everyday when they’re with the Mother, that they vacation together and that he is very close with the Mother as well. When the children are with the Father he testified that he speaks with the children sporadically. In 2024 he testified that he has seen the children two or three times a month when he drives down or they come up to Saratoga, and he spent a lot of time with them in Annapolis. He testified that in 2023 it was pretty much the same and that when the Mother requires childcare they come down to Long Island. Mr. P. testified that he sees the children in Massapequa at least two times per month. In February of 2023, Mr. P. testified that he received a call from M.T.M. and that M.T.M. was hysterical, crying and upset. He testified that after he spoke with M.T.M. he called the Mother and told her that M.T.M. had called indicating that they were at a brewery and couldn’t get back to the house they were staying at, and the Mother stated that she would handle it. He testified that about ten minutes later L.J.M. called and was also hysterical, and that he then called a friend to cover him at his restaurant and then called the Mother to tell her he was coming to get her to go get the children. He testified that L.J.M. called him one more time briefly, and that it took him ten minutes to get to the Mother to pick her up. He stated that the Mother told him that she had called a taxi service to pick up the children from the restaurant where they were and to bring them back to the house where they were staying. Mr. P. testified that it took a little over an hour to get to the house, and that he received a call from the Father about halfway through the drive. The Father had asked if they were really coming to pick up children, and he had said yes, and that when asked by the Father if he didn’t trust him to take care of the children Mr. P. testified that he responded that it had nothing to do with the Father but that he had told the children if they feel unsafe he would always go get them. He testified that the Father sounded slow, drawn out, a little slurring, as if “he’d had a few drinks.” Mr. P. testified that he and the Mother arrived at the house in Massachusetts around 8:00 p.m. and that he pulled into the driveway but stayed toward the bottom of the approximately 40-foot driveway. He testified that the weather was clear, no snow, and the driveway was blacktop. When they arrived, he testified that he saw the children and the Father at the top of the driveway with their things, and that the Mother went up to get the children. He testified that as they started to walk down the driveway he saw the Father fall down. He got out of the car when the kids were about halfway down the driveway, and that they were able to get to the car without incident. He testified that the children hugged the Mother and then they went to him and the car and the Mother went to talk to the Father, though he didn’t recall how long they spoke. When he received the children, he testified that L.J.M. was having problems with her allergies causing difficulty breathing so he grabbed her inhaler. After the parties spoke, the Mother returned to the car and was dealing with L.J.M.’s inhaler and there was a discussion about whether she needed to use a nebulizer, but after the inhaler she got a bit better. Mr. P. testified that they went back to his home in Malta, just south of Saratoga Springs, and that there was very little conversation on the way back. He testified that M.T.M. was very quiet and was paying a lot of attention to his sister. When they arrived home, he testified that he and the Mother discussed what had happened and she had said that the Father told her he wasn’t drinking at all. He testified that he doesn’t get involved in those things because it’s out of his control and the Father has nothing to do with him. Approximately a month later, Mr. P. testified that the Mother was involved in a car accident wherein her Lyft driver went off the road and hit a guard rail. He testified that he called a friend to cover him at the restaurant and headed down to the Long Island, and that the trip took approximately four hours. After they stayed a while at the hospital and were able to see the Mother, they went back to the Mother’s house in Massapequa where they stayed the night. Soon after they got to Massapequa, he testified that he and his wife got the children from the Father. He stated that he did not have a conversation with the Father as he doesn’t deal with the Father directly, but that his wife had a conversation with the Father about their caring for the children. For the first three weeks, he stated that either he or his wife were in Massapequa while the Mother was in the hospital and that the children stayed with them the whole time except for “maybe one night.” He testified that after those three weeks his sister-in-law came up from South Carolina to stay with the children, and then his goddaughter came from Austin, Texas and stayed for a week. Mr. P. testified that during the first week he and his wife were caring for the children and they would take them to their activities with the Father bringing them to some of their sports, but that the children remained with them. On cross-examination he testified that he was responsible for taking the children mostly to karate, and that the Father took them to many of their sports. He denied any knowledge of the Father coaching any of the children’s various sports at that time. He testified that he also brought the children to see the Mother even though the hospital did not permit children on the floor where she was, but that the second time he attempted this he was asked to leave by hospital staff. When the Mother was discharged he testified that he brought her home to the Mother’s house where his wife and the children were and that the children were very happy that the Mother was home. During this time, he testified that he saw the Father sometimes when he would come to take the children to different activities, and never saw him at the bus stop. He further testified that, during this time period, he made a pinewood derby car with L.J.M.. On cross-examination he testified that the Father was present at the pinewood derby. During the last five years, Mr. P. testified that he most recently cared for the children when the Mother went to Mexico City on business for a three-or four-day period. On cross-examination he testified that the Father arrived at the children’s bus stop to take them while the Mother was away but that he was not aware of any arrangements having been made so they took the children. Mr. P. stated that he has no interactions with the Father because he has no reason to and if anything needed to be communicated his wife would do it. He testified that he has a lot of animosity toward the Father “because I don’t like him, because I don’t respect him, because he doesn’t take care of his responsibilities his children and he’s a liar.” On cross-examination Mr. P. was asked about an altercation that occurred in the courthouse during the testimony of Oliver S.. He testified that he recalled being in the waiting room with Oliver S.’s mother and when asked if he had called her a “whore” he said “Nope.” He was asked if the court officers had to separate them and he said that they did. He was asked again if he called her a “whore” and he said that she had come back in and said things about the Mother and he testified that he responded. On further inquiry he stated, “I may have called her a whore, yeah.” He testified that Oliver S. was out in the hall at the time. On cross-examination by the children’s attorney, Mr. P. testified that when he and his wife arrived at the hospital following the Mother’s car accident that the children were with the Father for a day or two before they were picked up by the grandparents. With regard to his relocation to Maryland, Mr. P. was asked what his plans would be should the Mother not be permitted to relocate with the children and he testified that he spends a lot of time in Maryland anyway, but he would probably spend less time there if the Mother wasn’t going to be living there. He testified that he lives in “my wife and my daughter’s house” in Malta, New York. This concluded his testimony. Witness: Justin S. Justin S. testified as the Mother’s witness. He testified that he has been married to the Mother since December 27, 2023. He testified that he has met the Father at least twelve to fifteen times since they met either at college at Cornell or at the engagement party at the Father’s parents’ house in Maryland for the Mother and Father’s engagement. He testified that he has met the subject children “hundreds” of times and that they were at his home at the time of his testimony. Mr. S. testified that he was previously married to Lauren Hogan and has three children, Oliver who would turn 17 on August 2, 2024, Violet and Scarlett. He testified that he had been at the gym with Oliver last Sunday. Mr. S. testified that there was an ongoing proceeding in Maryland between himself and his ex-wife wherein he filed a motion seeking contempt as he alleges that his children’s mother is withholding the children from him during his court ordered parenting time. He testified that he does not presently have supervised visitation with his daughters, and that he’s never been required to have supervised parenting time with Oliver. Justin S. stated that he had reviewed his son Oliver’s testimony in preparation for testifying in the instant matter and stated that, with regard to the February 6, 2023 incident, “he lied about everything” that his story was “completely inaccurate.” He testified that he had sold his company around 3:00 that day and met with his CFO and his COO at a bar called Heroes and called his ex-wife and told her to get ready because they were going to go out to dinner. He stated that he was at Heroes for about 15 minutes and while he was there Ms. Hogan came into Heroes with Violet and grabbed a beer and threw it on the COO whose name is Cindy. He testified that Ms. Hogan then took his cellphone and left, so he went out to her car, asked her if everything was ok and asked for his phone back, and then took her cellphone. He then went to the lacrosse field where Oliver had lacrosse practice and where Ms. Hogan had gone to pick him up. He testified that he was at the lacrosse field for 30 seconds, then he went back to Heroes for two minutes and picked up his CFO Sean. They then went to Sean’s house for five minutes to drop him off, and then went back to his house that he shared with Ms. Hogan and the children. He testified that he got back to his house about 6:25 p.m. He testified that he was Ms. Hogan come out within 30 seconds and that he then told her “let’s go, we’re going to dinner” and that Sean and his wife were there as was his COO and her family. He testified that Oliver came out, he exchanged words with Ms. Hogan and then Oliver ran after him. He testified that he was 25 feet away from Ms. Hogan at the time, and that he ran away from Oliver. He testified that Oliver jumped on his back, his shirt flew off, and then he jumped in his car and left. Mr. S. testified that there is video footage of the incident. He stated that he believes Ms. Hogan hit him a few times but he did not recall exactly, and he did not hit her. After that, he testified that he went back to his office in Baltimore to get a shirt and met his COO there who had beer all over herself, and that he said to her “whatever, who cares, we sold our company today, ya know, time to celebrate.” Mr. S. testified that he learned the next day that criminal charges were filed against him. He testified that ultimately he took an Alford plea, which he testified was a “not guilty” plea because he would never put his son in a position to testify. Mr. S. testified that his visit with Oliver this past weekend ended when Oliver jumped out of his car because he had told Oliver that he would not apologize for the Mother’s father having called Ms. Hogan a “whore” while at court. He testified that he was stopped at a red light at the time, and they were approximately 100 feet from his mother’s house. He testified that he has not had any discussions with Oliver about his testimony in this case. On cross-examination Mr. S. testified that he’s known the Mother since middle school and has been around the subject children throughout the parties’ history. He testified that the children were with them at a holiday party at the Mother’s parents’ house on Christmas Eve six years ago. He testified that he “basically” lived in New York for three months during the summer of 2023. He testified that he and Oliver were at the Mother’s bridal shower and that he would spend time with the Mother every time he was in New York including during the time the Mother and Father were married. He testified that they were always best friends, that they went to the prom together. On continued cross-examination Mr. S. testified that he will remain on criminal probation until July of 2025 and that the terms of his probation include not drinking, travel restrictions such that he needs to notify his probation officer if he’s traveling. He testified that he is divorced from Ms. Hogan and that he currently sees his two younger children two days a week, once for four hours and once for seven hours, without supervision. He testified that he’s not currently seeing Oliver at all. Mr. S. further testified that the subject children were at his house currently with the Mother’s mother and the Mother’s cousin. He testified that he owns several single-family homes, and that the maternal grandmother was currently at one of his homes, and that he and the Mother had just purchased an 8 bedroom 6.5 bathroom home that was a former inn that they converted into a single family house. He testified that it is he and the Mother’s intention to reside there and that he doesn’t know yet whether they plan to continue renting out rooms in the inn. He clarified on cross-examination by the children’s attorney that the Naval Academy in Annapolis has a graduation and that there’s one “strong week where most people in Annapolis would go away and would rent out their house” and that they could probably get $40,000.00 for that week for a rental. He stated that he doesn’t know if he’d rent the house out, that he hasn’t before but maybe. On further cross-examination by the children’s attorney he testified that prior to his filing his contempt application that he hadn’t seen his children for some time. He testified that he had had Oliver 50/50 when he was divorced from Ms. Hogan from 2011 to 2017. He testified that his younger two children are 4 and 6 years old. He testified that he has rental properties, and that he currently resides in a house that he rents with someone else, and that is the house where the subject children are with the maternal grandmother. He testified that he and the Mother own the inn together and he owns another house and that the maternal grandparents live in the inn currently. The other house he owns he testified that Ms. Hogan lives in with his other children. He testified that they were divorced in 2010 and he bought that house himself in 2018. This concluded his testimony. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Mother’s Application for Permission to Relocate to Maryland: Pursuant to the parties’ 2016 Stipulation, “[t]he parties shall have joint physical and legal custody” of the children with their primary residence being with the Mother, and same states that “[b]oth parents shall have equal parenting time with the Children” [emphasis added]. The 2016 Stipulation states that “the parties shall consult with a view toward modifying, if need be, the parenting time schedule based upon the Children’s best interests” [emphasis added]. As such, while the 2016 Stipulation gave the parties great latitude with regard to scheduling of their respective parenting time with the children, same required that the parenting time with each parent be equal, despite attempts at characterizations to the contrary. While lengthy testimony and numerous and voluminous exhibits were entered in evidence in an effort to demonstrate exactly how much time the children have spent with each of the parties dating back to the 2016 Stipulation, what emerges as clear is that the Father has enjoyed substantial parenting time with the children always. Even if taken at face value, despite the litany of inconsistencies between the two calendars presented at trial, the summary of the Father’s parenting time as tabulated and prepared by the Mother and annexed to her petition indicate that during the four-year period from the beginning of 2020 through the end of 2023, the Father had the children for the following overnight parenting time: 2020: 91 overnights calculated as 25 percent of overnight parenting time 2021: 104 overnights calculated as 28 percent of overnight parenting time 2022: 95 overnights calculated as 26 percent of overnight parenting time 2023: 103 total overnights which equates to 28 percent of overnight parenting time The Mother testified that these figures, as she presented to the Court, represented the Father’s overnight parenting time only and was not reflective of any additional parenting time he had with the children, including but not limited his presence at and participation in their various sports and extracurricular activities. The Mother further testified that, since the initiation of the legal proceedings the Father has had the children 13-15 overnights per month and approximately 50 percent of the time as set forth in the 2016 Stipulation. In addition to his overnight parenting time, the Father has undisputedly been an active participant in both children’s sports and extracurricular activities, having coached many of their sports teams when they were younger and by continuing to attend such event which additional time was, admittedly, not included in the Mother’s tabulation of his “historical” parenting time. Moreover, the children have a wonderful and close relationship with their Father and enjoy their time with him. It is well-settled that ” ‘[a] parent seeking leave to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests’ ” (Schwartz v. Schwartz, 186 A.D.3d 1742, 1744 [2d Dept 2020], quoting, Matter of Hall v. Clas, 144 A.D.3d 801, 802 [2d Dept 2016]). The Court of Appeals held in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea (87 N.Y.2d 727, 740-1 [1996]) that, “in all cases, the courts should be free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination” which factors include, but are not limited to, “each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.” “In assessing these factors, ‘no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome.’ However, ‘the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern’ ” (Matter of Carr v. Thomas, 169 A.D.3d 903, 904 [2d Dept 2019], quoting, Tropea, supra.). The Appellate Division Second Department has upheld the denial of an application by a parent seeking permission to relocate with children where the parties’ accounts of the non-custodial parent’s exercise of his parenting time were in dispute but the non-custodial parent nonetheless enjoyed a loving relationship with the subject children (Follini v. Currie, 176 A.D.3d 1203 [2d Dept 2019]). A mother’s application to relocate based upon her having taken a work promotion was denied with the court holding that “[a]lthough the mother proved that the child’s life would be enhanced economically, the mother failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child’s life would also be enhanced emotionally and educationally by the move…and failed to show that relocation ‘would not have a negative impact on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the father,’ who had exercised most of his parental access rights and indicated that he desired to continue participating in the child’s life” (Lyons v. Sepe, 163 A.D.3d 567 [2d Dept 2018], quoting Lopez v. Chasquetti,148 A.D.3d 1151, 1153 [2d Dept 2017]). In the instant matter, the Mother seeks permission to relocate to Annapolis, Maryland with the subject children, some 250 miles from their current home in Massapequa that is just over a half mile away from the Father’s residence. The Mother’s request is predicated upon her marriage to Justin S., who she has known since childhood, and her representation that the move would benefit her professionally and financially and that she believes the children’s economic and educational opportunities would be enhanced by the move. With regard to the Mother’s marriage to Justin S., the Court heard testimony and was presented evidence of his criminal history¹, judicial determinations regarding his history of substance abuse, and the requirement that his contact with his own young children necessitated supervision at least for a period of time². The arrest was due to a physical altercation with his teenage son which resulted in his taking an Alford plea to two counts of assault in the second degree and his being placed on two years of supervised probation. The foregoing notwithstanding, as the subject children have expressed that they share a positive relationship with Justin S. the Court declines to impose any parameters for his contact with the subject children despite the Father’s application for such restrictions. Regarding the Mother’s claims of economic enhancement that would result from her move to Maryland, the Mother presented no documentary evidence and based her claim solely on her own limited testimony on this issue. The Mother’s claims of potential economic benefit resulting from a move to Maryland were vague and speculative. She never defined her “business case” which she claims would improve, nor did she quantify the prospective “significant increase” in her compensation or the “support for your family” she claims she would receive if she were to be made a partner at Ernst & Young. With respect to the children’s educational advancement, the Mother’s claim of same is based solely on the fact that she, without informing the Father, investigated a number of private schools in the immediate vicinity of Annapolis, Maryland. The Mother’s testimony regarding the bullying she claims the children have experienced at their current school and on the bus over a period of many years is belied both by her substantive inaction, until such time as she married Mr. S., as well as the children’s accounts of their experience at school in Massapequa. The Mother did not testify to any efforts that she had made to find the children an alternate private school option on Long Island if she felt that the Massapequa schools are not meeting the children’s needs and stated only that she had contacted and spoken with various teachers and other school personnel to otherwise address the issues. In contrast, the Mother’s efforts to steer the children toward a move to Maryland have been constant, have been undertaken in the absence of any conversation or consultation with the Father, and verge on violative of the Court’s temporary restraining order precluding her from changing the children’s residence from Massapequa during the pendency of the proceedings. While the temporary restraining order remained, the Mother enrolled the children in summer camp programs in Maryland, had L.J.M. try out for multiple lacrosse teams in Maryland, and secured enrollment spots for both children at a private school in Maryland. None of those endeavors were discussed with the Father who not only shares joint legal custody of the children but could potentially be called upon in the future to contribute financially to such programs despite the Mother’s representation that she does not yet intend to seek such contribution. It is also noteworthy that the Mother and her husband bought a puppy that resides in their prospective home in Maryland, and that the children have been brought to the prospective new home and shown their intended new accommodations. Glaringly absent from the Mother’s case-in-chief was any testimony or evidence pertaining to Mr. S.’s inability to relocate to Long Island. Much effort was spent pointing to various connections the Father has to Maryland and totally disregarding the fact that his wife and her child whose father resides on Long Island have a court-ordered visitation schedule requiring them to remain in New York. There was no explanation given as to why Mr. S., who, it was established, is not lacking in financial resources, would not be able to relocate to Long Island. There was no testimony about Mr. S.’s current profession, where he works, the nature of his business, or any other roadblocks to his own relocation. He testified that his contact with his younger children amounts to a few hours each week such that equivalent parenting time could be structured should he move primarily to New York. Finally, with respect to the Father’s ability to maintain his relationship with the children in the same or similar fashion should the Mother relocate, the Mother’s proposal for same falls woefully short of the equally shared parenting time to which he is entitled under the current order and which the Father has had since November of 2023, and still woefully short of the roughly 27 percent of overnight parenting time that Mother calculated the Father exercised from 2020 through 2023. There is no conceivable way for the children to relocate approximately 250 miles from the Father and for him to continue being the active participant in their lives that he has been throughout the parties’ history. As it relates to the application for permission to relocate with the children to Maryland, the Mother has failed to meet her burden and her application must be denied and her petition filed under Dockets: V-08322-23/24E and V-08323-23/24E are dismissed. The Father’s Application for a Modification of Custody: 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]). The court must examine the totality of circumstances in determining whether a modification is in the best interests of the child (see, 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]). “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]). The Court conducted an in camera interview with each 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 these children, ages 10 (M.T.M.) and 9 (L.J.M.) was meaningful and taken into consideration in determining the appropriate outcome. Here, the difficulties that have arisen in making arrangements for shared parenting time with an unstructured order coupled with the Father’s multiple enforcement petitions, the Mother’s unwillingness to abide by the existing order as it pertains to equal parenting time, and both parties’ testimony to the effect that the children would benefit from a set schedule of parenting time, demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification as it pertains to the parenting time schedule. Having determined that a modification is necessary, the Court must now determine what modification would indeed be in the child’s best interests. 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]). In this case, while the parties have experienced a disconnect in their communication during the pendency of these proceedings, both parties testified at length about the nearly seamless cooperation and “fluid” co-parenting that they enjoyed prior to engaging in litigation. While the more recent breakdown is of concern, the Court has great confidence in the parties’ ability to effectively co-parent and to work together toward the best interests of their children once the instant proceedings are behind them and, as such, is not inclined to disturb the joint legal custodial arrangement that has been in place since the parties’ divorce in 2017 with the single exception being final decision-making. While the parties have historically been able to work together to reach agreements regarding the children, and it is anticipated that such efforts and communication will continue, in the event of an impasse after meaningful consultation, the Mother will have final decision-making authority regarding major decisions inasmuch as it was demonstrated she has historically undertaken primary responsibility for the children’s medical and educational matters. With respect to the division of parenting time, it clear that regardless of how parenting time had been divided over the years the children have always primarily resided with the Mother and the testimony and evidence demonstrate that such arrangement should continue such that the Mother have residential custody. Additionally, neither party testified to any issue that had ever arisen between them as it pertains to holiday parenting time and therefore the Court will adopt the holiday schedule as set forth in the parties’ 2016 Stipulation, subject to the parties’ right to make any adjustments thereto as they may mutually agree. Regarding summer parenting time, the Court is cognizant of the fact that the Mother’s husband currently resides in Maryland and that, as long as that arrangement should continue, the Mother may wish to spend more extended periods of time in Maryland and that the children may be able to participate in summer camp or summer sports programs by spending larger blocks of time with each parent during the summer. Therefore, while the Court will provide structure to the division of summer parenting time, it is the intent that the parties share the time equally and endeavor to do so in a manner most productive for the children. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Mother’s petition filed under Dockets: V-08322-23/24E and V-08323-23/24E is hereby DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Father’s enforcement petition filed under Dockets: V-08322-23/24D and V-08323-23/24D is hereby DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Father’s modification petition filed under Dockets: V-08322-23/24C and V-08323-23/24C is hereby GRANTED, and the parties’ order directing custody and parenting time is hereby modified as set forth below. The Court having searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the sex offender registry and the Family Court’s child protective records, and having notified the attorneys for the parties and the child as to the results, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Mother shall have residential custody; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall share joint legal custody the children. The parties shall meaningfully consult with one another regarding any major decision pertaining to the health, education, or general welfare of the children and undertake their best efforts to reach a mutual decision, seeking, if necessary, the opinion and/or assistance of an applicable professional in the area (ex: treating physician, medical specialist, teacher or school administrator, etc.). In the event that, after full and complete discourse between the parties, they are unable to reach an agreement, the Mother shall have final decision-making authority subject to the Father’s right to petition the Court for intervention; and it is further ORDERED, that each party shall be entitled to full access to all records pertaining to the health, education, and welfare of the children 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; and it is further ORDERED, that in the event of an emergency affecting the children, when it is not practicable for the parties to consult with each other regarding a prescribed course of treatment, the parent who the children are with at the time shall have the right to make a decision regarding the children’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; and it is further ORDERED, that 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 children at the time of the appointment shall be responsible for taking the children to the appointment. In the event either parent cannot attend a medical appointment, the parent who took the children to the appointment shall provide medical documentation concerning the visit to the other parent; and it is further ORDERED, that 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 children’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 children’s health, education and welfare; and it is further ORDERED, that the Mother shall not be permitted to relocate the residence of the children outside their current school district without the advance written consent of the Father or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction; and it is further ORDERED, that the Father shall have parenting time with the children every other weekend from after school on Friday until drop off at school on Monday; and it is further ORDERED, that the Father shall have additional weekday parenting time every Tuesday from after school until drop off at school on Wednesday; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall at all times enjoy the right of first refusal such that if either parent is unavailable during their parenting time, then the other parent shall have the right to be with the children over and above any third party. The unavailable parent must notify the other in writing as soon as they become aware of the anticipated unavailability; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall share holiday parenting time as follows: Holiday Even Years           Odd Years Martin Luther King Day     Mother    Father February Recess defined as after school on the last day of school until school resumes       Father     Mother Easter/Spring Recess defined as after school on the last day of school until school resumes               Mother    Father Mother’s Day      Mother every year Memorial Day     Mother    Father Father’s Day       Father every year Fourth of July     Father every year inclusive of his birthday (July 3rd) July 19th (Mother’s Birthday)           Mother every year Labor Day Father                Mother Columbus Day    Mother    Father Halloween The parties will share the holiday as agreed Election Day       Father     Mother Veteran’s Day     Father     Mother Thanksgiving    Father     Mother Christmas Holiday             Mother    Father ; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall endeavor to share parenting time on each of the children’s birthdays, but in the event they are unable to reach an agreement, each party shall be entitled to two hours with the children if the birthday falls on a weekday, or four hours if the birthday falls on a weekend; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties shall share summer parenting time equally. With regard to scheduling, the parties should endeavor to divide summer parenting time in such a manner that is most beneficial to the children’s needs and schedules. In the event they cannot agree, the parties shall share parenting time in two-week blocks with the summer scheduling beginning the Monday immediately following the last day of school with the Father to have the first two-week block each year as same will include his birthday (July 3rd), and the Mother’s next block will then necessarily include her birthday (July 19th); and it is further ORDERED, that neither party shall consume, or be under the influence of any alcohol, illegal drugs, marijuana, or prescription medications in excess of their prescribed dosages in the presence of the children nor shall they permit any stepparent or other similarly situated parent substitute to do so; and it is further ORDERED, that there shall be any other parenting time as agreed between the parties. A separate Final Order of Custody and Parenting Time reflecting the terms set forth above shall issue simultaneously herewith. 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. Dated: October 11, 2024