In this post-judgment application for relief, both sides seek a change in the visitation schedule set forth in the judgment of divorce in an effort to alleviate stress on their young daughters. The defendant seeks partially to eliminate visitation and the plaintiff, aside from seeking custody, petitions for changes in the pick-up and drop-off location. Other relief is also requested which will be addressed in this decision.

As the parties marriage deteriorated more than five years ago, strident positions were taken and held on to for longer than they served a purpose. Therapy for the elder daughter was sought and as a result the plaintiff was forced to endure a lengthy and humiliating term of supervised visitation with both of his children. A long and contentious trial followed and the plaintiff estimates it cost the parties more than $1,000,000.00. Not surprisingly, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have recovered, and motions for various relief are submitted on a [*2]regular basis.

Several months ago, at the request of the defendant, and based on averments of the children's stress over visitation with the father, the court allowed her to seek family therapy, and encouraged the father to participate. Now, neither side is satisfied with the way things are going, and relief is sought by both parties.

Unfortunately, courts are never in an ideal position to make decisions for parents. More unfortunate is the fact that courts are too often asked to do so. In this case, the children's therapist recommended that the whole family, together with a parent coordinator "all meet together and work out a clear agreement specifying the parameters of visitation to provide the children with some sense of security and control over visitation with the father."

As a reminder to the parties, the court set out the "parameters of visitation" after much reflection in its judgment of divorce. The parties are directed to adhere to it literally in order to provide consistency and regularity to the children. Furthermore, the mother and the father are directed to exercise custody and visitation in a manner appropriate to their responsibilities to their daughters. Maturity must have a role here.

In considering a change in custody or visitation, a court must be guided solely by the best interests of the children (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Crudele v Wells, 99 AD3d 1227; Matter of Doroski v Ashton, 99 AD3d 902) to be determined under the totality of the circumstances. In this case, these young children are still best served by allowing their mother sole custody with decision-making rights along with visitation to the father as detailed in the divorce judgment. It is the court's opinion that any stress to the daughters is being caused by their parents nit-picking, one-upmanship and lingering resentments. If the relationship between father and daughters is strained, it is up to the parents - both parents - to repair it. Although the father is opposed to the family therapist, the court, nevertheless, encourages him to cooperate and participate in the therapy as a step in this direction. It is also the court's opinion that maintaining the visitation schedule in a spirit of cooperation by the parents is in the children's best interests (see: Matter of Carter v Work, 100 AD3d 1557).

The issues between the parties concerning their daughters are not insurmountable. The court believes that with a minimum of trust and accommodation these girls can have an enjoyable experience with both parents - an experience to which they are entitled.

This is the Decision and Order of the court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.