Opinion
2003-06307.
Decided June 1, 2004.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated May 12, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole custody of the subject child, limited his visitation to the State of New York, and denied his application for permission to relocate with the child to Georgia.
Robert Hausner, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.
Peter Dailey, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
John C. Macklin, New Hyde Park, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in making any award of custody ( see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 94). Because any custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the hearing court's findings ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 174), which will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Fuentes v. Fuentes, 5 A.D.3d 484). Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis.
The father contends that the Family Court failed to consider all the relevant factors and relied too heavily on the testimony of the court-appointed psychologist. Recommendations of persons such as the court-appointed psychologist and law guardian are not determinative of the ultimate issue in controversy but are factors to be considered, unless unsupported by the record ( see Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 118). The psychologist and Law Guardian agreed that it was in the best interests of the child that the mother have sole legal custody. Their recommendations were supported by the record and, therefore, were properly considered by the Family Court. Contrary to the father's contention, "Family Court was not guided simply by these recommendations, but assessed a host of relevant factors detailed in the record, each of which is germane to an examination of the totality of the circumstances and a reasoned resolution of the issue" ( Matter of Bates v. Bates, 290 A.D.2d 732, 733).
The father's contention that the Family Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera interview of the then four- or five-year-old child is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Rudy v. Mazzetti, 5 A.D.3d 777; Matter of Nielsen v. Nielsen, 225 A.D.2d 1050; Matter of Newton v. Newton, 210 A.D.2d 337) . In any event, this contention is without merit. The decision to conduct an in camera interview of a child involved in a custody proceeding is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the Family Court ( cf. Matter of Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 273-274). Where, as here, the child is of a very young age, and neither the parties nor the Law Guardian requested an in camera interview, the Family Court's determination not to conduct such interview was a provident exercise of discretion ( see Matter of Rudy v. Mazzetti, supra; Matter of Thompson v. Thompson, 267 A.D.2d 516, 519; Matter of Farnham v. Farnham, 252 A.D.2d 675, 677).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.