Opinion
06-02-2016
Darya BRAVERMAN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Eric BRAVERMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Law Office of Frank Taddeo, Jr., New York (Frank Taddeo, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Hindin Deutsch P.C., New York (Bettina D. Hindin of counsel), for respondent. Bender & Rosenthal, LLP, New York (Susan L. Bender of counsel), attorney for the children.
Law Office of Frank Taddeo, Jr., New York (Frank Taddeo, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.
Hindin Deutsch P.C., New York (Bettina D. Hindin of counsel), for respondent.
Bender & Rosenthal, LLP, New York (Susan L. Bender of counsel), attorney for the children.
ACOSTA, J.P., SAXE, GISCHE, WEBBER, KAHN, JJ.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about November 6, 2014, which awarded plaintiff primary physical and legal custody of the parties' children, and ordered, inter alia, defendant to have supervised therapeutic access time with the children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is a sound and substantial evidentiary basis for the court's custody determination (see Matter of Frank M. v. Donna W., 44 A.D.3d 495, 844 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept.2007] ; see also Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). Sufficient evidence supports the court's determination that defendant, a physician, committed medical child abuse by exaggerating the children's symptoms and repeatedly subjecting them to unnecessary and at times invasive medical treatment (see Matter of Andrew B., 49 A.D.3d 638, 854 N.Y.S.2d 157 [2d Dept.2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 714, 862 N.Y.S.2d 335, 892 N.E.2d 401 [2008] ; Matter of Patrick GG., 286 A.D.2d 540, 544, 729 N.Y.S.2d 215 [3d Dept.2001] ). The court-appointed psychiatrist, specialists in medical child abuse, and the children's pediatrician testified that defendant relentlessly pursued diagnostic medical treatments, took the children to unnecessary specialists, and took them for appointments against the advice of and without telling the pediatrician. The court's determination is further supported by reports from Comprehensive Family Services of his supervised visits with the children, which describe his fixation with their health, his desire to photograph their numerous purported injuries during his visits, and his desire to seek medical treatment during the visits.
As the court noted, even if defendant's conduct fell short of medical child abuse, other factors warranted awarding custody to plaintiff, including defendant's impaired mental health, his false accusations of abuse, neglect and alienation against plaintiff, and his inferior parenting capabilities. There is support in the record for the court-appointed expert's findings regarding the father's mental health, including the opinions of several other experts, and the court's observations of the father's demeanor during the trial (Rentschler v. Rentschler, 204 A.D.2d 60, 611 N.Y.S.2d 523 [1st Dept.1994], lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 1027, 623 N.Y.S.2d 182, 647 N.E.2d 454 [1995] ).
For the same reasons, and due to defendant's conduct during visits, the court properly concluded that supervised visitation is in the children's best interests (see Ronald S. v. Lucille Diamond S., 45 A.D.3d 295, 846 N.Y.S.2d 85 [1st Dept.2007] ; Matter of Gabriel J. [Dainee A. ], 100 A.D.3d 572, 573, 955 N.Y.S.2d 18 [1st Dept.2012] ; see also Arelis Carmen S. v. Daniel H., 78 A.D.3d 504, 911 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept.2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 707, 2011 WL 1120107 [2011] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.