Petitioner Tammy C. (hereinafter "the mother") and Respondent Jacob C. (hereinafter "the father") are the parents of the subject child (date of birth: XX/XX/13) (hereinafter "the child"). This is a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6. This action commenced with the mother's filing of an Article 8 family offense petition on March 23, 2023, followed soon thereafter by her filing of an Article 6 custody petition on March 27, 2023. On April 21, 2023, the father filed a counter-petition for custody.

A Fact-Finding Hearing on the Article 8 family offense petition was held on May 11, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The mother was represented by Attorney Thomas D. Cramer. The father was represented by Attorney Anthony N. Elia, III. Attorney Olivia M. N. Molineux of Citizens Concerned for Children, Inc., appeared as the Attorney for the Child. The Court heard testimony from a former babysitter of the child, a former therapist of the child, the paternal grandmother, and the parties. Numerous exhibits were admitted into evidence. On May 18, 2023, the Court conducted a pre-Article-6-Fact-Finding Lincoln Hearing with the child and the Attorney for the Child. On May 19, 2023, the Court issued an oral Decision and Order with findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record with all counsel and parties present.

A Fact-Finding Hearing on the Article 6 custody petitions was held on December 13, 2023, December 14, 2023, and December 15, 2023. The mother was represented by Attorney Thomas D. Cramer. The father was represented by Attorney Anthony N. Elia, III. Attorney Olivia M. N. Molineux of Citizens Concerned for Children, Inc., appeared as the Attorney for the Child. The Court heard testimony from a former therapist who conducted therapeutic visitation between the father and child, a retired teacher who supervised visits between the father and child, the father's therapist, and the parties. Numerous exhibits were admitted into evidence. On January 24, 2024, the Court conducted a final Lincoln Hearing with the child and the Attorney for the Child.

On February 12, 2024, Dr. Daniel Clark, Ph.D., issued a Neuropsychological Evaluation of the child. On February 15, 2024, counsel for the mother moved the Court to incorporate the evaluation into the record. On March 4, 2024, counsel for the parties filed their written summations with the Court. On March 7, 2024, the Attorney for the Child filed her written summation with the Court. The summations relied heavily on the evaluation. The Court re-opened proof in order to take testimony from the parties with respect to their responses to Dr. Clark's evaluation and the parental dialogue concerning the schooling recommendations made by Dr. Clark. The Court took additional testimony from the parties and admitted additional exhibits into evidence on June 5, 2024, and June 6, 2024.

The Court searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the Sex Offender Registry, and the Family Court's child protective records, and notified the parties and the attorneys of the results of these searches.

The parties are married though currently undergoing the divorce process. They share one child who was born on XX/XX/13. In January of 2024, the child underwent a neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Daniel Clark, Ph.D., who issued a written report on February 12, 2024 (Petitioner's Exhibit 42). The parties stipulated the evaluation into evidence. Dr. Clark did not testify. The report was thorough, comprehensive, and informative.

The child is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Though the child only recently received these diagnoses, she has long struggled with emotional dysregulation, rigidity, distractibility, difficulty sleeping, and sensory issues. The mother testified that the child engages in daily tantrums involving yelling, screaming, hitting, and kicking. This has understandably placed an inordinate amount of stress on the parties.

The mother began to home school the child when the child was four years old. As a result, the mother has taken on the vast majority of caregiving responsibilities for the child. The father, a professor, supports the family financially and helps where he can, demonstrating an avid interest in his daughter's pursuits.

During one of the child's tantrums, on June 12, 2021, the father lost his temper, picked the child up, and threw her on the bed, causing some bruising on the child's arms and a scratch on her leg. The child and mother were upset with the father in the immediate aftermath of the "bed incident," demanding the father acknowledge the bruises he had caused. However, things soon returned to normal for the family.

Nearly two years later, in March of 2023, the mother flew with the child to California to [*2]visit the mother's parents and siblings from whom the mother had been estranged for nearly a decade. The mother did not give the father a definite return date. After being away for several weeks, the mother made it clear to the father that the marriage was over. Upon her return to New York, the mother filed her family offense petition and obtained a temporary full-stay-away order of protection in favor of the child and herself from this Court, such order barring the father from the marital home. As a result of that order and subsequent orders of this Court, the father did not see the child from early March 2023 until the first therapeutic visitation session on June 22, 2023. Notably — and disturbingly — the child, who had had no problems with her father from shortly after the "bed incident" on June 21, 2021, until some point during her California visit in March of 2023, began perseverating over the "bed incident" and citing it as a reason to wish to never see her father again.

The Court held its Fact-Finding Hearing on the family offense petition on May 11, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The Court incorporates as if fully set forth herein its Decision and Order of May 19, 2023. However, to provide further clarity to this decision, the Court wishes to highlight several important points it made on May 19, 2023:

"The petitioner, [Ms. C.], has proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence one family offense. It was the one approximately two years ago. The Court does find by the credible evidence, by the preponderance standard that [Mr. C.] intentionally — and yes certainly in part out of exhaustion, frustration, and an inability to moderate and control his anger — [Mr. C.] intentionally did subject [the child] to alarming unwanted physical contact when he intentionally and roughly picked her up and threw her on her bed. She suffered some bruising on her arms and a scratch on her leg." (Transcript, p. 8)

"[The Court is] not finding that any other family offenses [have] been proven. [The Court is] certainly not finding that there was forcible touching." (Transcript, p. 8)

"The bed incident, which technically is a family offense, [Mr. C.] did commit it against [the child]. It was about two years ago. There is no statute of limitations . . . [The Court has] some concerns about why [the child] is still so focused on that incident. This Family Court judge has heard so many family offenses that parents have committed against each other — wives against husbands, husbands against wives, mothers against children, fathers against children. It just appears to be out of proportion to the family offense the amount of focus on this." (Transcript, p. 9)

"[The child]'s photo album and her autobiography, if you will, that she's working on, it's about [the child] and it's about [Ms. C.] and it's about her newfound family in California. [Mr. C.], [the child]'s father, has been deleted. There is no reference that [the child] has a father. [The Court has] grave concerns about that. [The Family Court's] mandate . . . is to ensure that a child's best interest is protected. There is a presumption that, in protecting a child's best interest . . . [the Court's] mandate is to ensure that a child shall have a relationship with both of her parents. [The Court is] going to do that. [The child] should not be encouraged to believe that she is going to start a new life in California with her mother and her newfound family and that the father's memory will be stricken from existence." (Transcript, p. 12)

"[The Court is] gravely concerned that [the child] is under the belief that she has the option to delete her father. She does not. [Mr. C.], you have work to do. [Ms. C.], you have some work to do also. And, [Ms. C.], [the Court certainly finds] that [Mr. C.] has anger issues, extreme anger issues. He has to take responsibility for that. He has work to [*3]do. [The Court has] seen so much worse in Family Court." (Transcript, p. 13)

"[The mother has] to accept responsibility and consequences for this as well. [The mother is] part of this. [The mother has] some responsibility here. [The child] appears far too enmeshed with [the mother]. [The child] appears far too enmeshed with a dream of a new life in California." (Transcript, p. 13)

"[The Court further finds] that [the child] has an inappropriate level of knowledge about the issues involved in this case. That has to stop. If the Court does not act now, [the Court's] fear is that [the child] will become irreconcilably alienated from her father. And [the Court notes its concern] that [Ms. C.] was estranged, and I repeat it, from her own family for nearly a decade. We cannot let [the child] repeat that pattern with her own father." (Transcript, p. 14)

"The mother shall encourage and facilitate [the child] to have a relationship with her father." (Transcript, p. 15)

"The father will . . . as a component of his individual counseling . . . engage in a comprehensive anger management program. Not a one session anger management. Comprehensive and thorough." (Transcript, pp. 15-16)

"[Mr. C.] and [the child] shall commence therapeutic visitation no later than 30 days from today." (Transcript, p. 16)

When the father returned to Court for the Article 6 Fact-Finding Hearing, he had done everything the Court had asked of him and more. He successfully completed a 16-chapter comprehensive anger management course guided by an experienced therapist. The father worked one-on-one with his therapist during hour-long sessions and independently completed workbook assignments as homework. The father worked diligently and earnestly, gained insight into past episodes of uncontrolled anger including the "bed incident," and developed skills to manage future triggers. The Court was moved by the father's description of the work he had done and what he had learned. He shared, "Across all dimensions of my life, this has been so much more helpful than I could have ever thought." The Court has never seen a litigant search out and complete such a comprehensive anger management course. He continues in therapy through present. The Court is incredibly impressed by all of the work the father has done.

By contrast, the Court finds that the mother did nothing to facilitate the child's relationship with the father as the Court ordered. In fact, she did just the opposite. Once permitted by the Court, the father attempted to repair his relationship with the child through therapeutic visitation. The mother sabotaged the therapeutic visitation. According to the therapist, the child was "shooting daggers from her eyes at [her father]" and "was looking at [her father] like he was a monster" during the sessions. When the therapist asked the mother to be part of the sessions, she refused. Tellingly, in a video recording of the child refusing to go into the last scheduled therapeutic visitation session, the child's body language poignantly and eerily mirrored the mother's as they both stood together defiantly with arms crossed. (Respondent's Exhibit F-1). Uncoincidentally, the therapeutic visits failed.

Once permitted by the Court, the father attempted to engage the child in 21 Facetime sessions. She did not speak to her father during a single one. Regardless, the father continued to call the child, speak to her, and try to engage her. The child set an egg timer for 20 minutes during each call and would hang up on her father when the timer went off, even if her father was mid-sentence. Respondent's Exhibit H is a compilation of the end of each of those calls. The [*4]mother allowed the child to ignore and then hang up on her father each and every time.

In all the time that the father was estranged from the child, the mother never told her that her father missed her, testifying, "I did not make that presumption." The mother never told her that her father loved her and wanted to see her, testifying, "That's not for me to say. How can I know what he's feeling?" This callous disregard for the child's relationship with her father and stubborn refusal to do anything to facilitate the relationship — even after ordered to do so by this Court - is shocking and disturbing. In addition, the Court finds that the mother has repeatedly failed to advise the father about important medical, educational, and extra-curricular information concerning the child. She has even failed to convey the child's food preferences and discomfort with the father's bathroom facilities, thus subtly sabotaging the father's efforts to have successful parenting time with his daughter, testifying, "I'm not sure why that is my responsibility." The mother misapprehends her role as the child's custodial parent.

What is most telling, probative, and confirmatory is the child's behavior immediately following the conclusion of the December 2023 hearing dates when the Court issued a new interim order requiring unsupervised in-person overnight visits between the father and child. The Court concurrently conveyed an admonition to the child through the Attorney for the Child that if the child did not start to have some meaningful relationship with the father, the Court might have to switch custody to the father. Suddenly, the child, who had refused to engage with her father for the better part of a year, started talking to her father and having successful overnight visitation with him lasting several months. The father testified, "We did Christmas. It was wonderful. That was the best. There were no problems. She was excited. She missed me. She told me she loved me . . . it was like nothing had changed." This underscores that the child's previous refusal to communicate with the father or have any relationship with him was really the child's expression of the mother's antipathy towards the father and not reflective of any true feelings of the child. It also demonstrated to the Court that a supervisor was no longer necessary for the father's parenting time.^[FN1]

Turning to the issue of the child's schooling, Dr. Clark offered the following recommendations for educational placement:

"Considering the educational placement of a bright child with neurodevelopmental disabilities can be especially challenging. Many parents find that there is no one program that can perfectly meet a child's nuanced needs. The options tend to fall into three camps: public schools, private schools, or specialized home schooling.

a. In a public school, [the child] will likely get the best clinical and special education services and access to the widest array of peers, but opportunities for gifted activities may be challenging to produce. Public schools tend to have the most resources and are held to high legal and ethical standards for meeting the unique needs of children, though there is no public obligation to provide gifted programming. Still, many IEP teams are willing to accommodate gifted learners. For instance, an IEP team may [*5]assign an older student to mentor a gifted learner, or a gifted learner may be able to spend some time every week pursuing self-study with a teacher. Another important benefit to the public school system is that public schools tend to offer the highest number of neurotypical peers and a wider variety if semi- structured social learning opportunities, all of which will ultimately be critical for [the child]'s development.

b. Some private schools offer appropriate clinical supports, but this is often rare and will require close examination by her parents to confirm. Gifted educational opportunities are often a reason private schools are sought out — whether or not the school delivers on promises. Although diversity often lacks, a wider group of peers is available. Private schools can sometimes be more flexible with the programming they offer gifted learners. They tend to have demanding curricula and can devote more time to tailor a learning program to a specific student's needs. Still, private schools often over-sell what are otherwise average programs, and parents may not always get the return on investment they expected upon enrollment. Another important factor to consider with private schools is that they seldom have comprehensive special education services, rarely or never offer substantial mental health or counseling services and are not obligated to safeguard the rights of a student with special needs. Finally, although the peer group will be wider at a private school compared to a home school option, the peers tend to be restricted to specific economic and social classes, which can stunt social experiences.

c. Home-school offers the best opportunity to tailor instruction, but requires extra effort to address social, therapeutic, and creative needs. Home- schooling options are sometimes popular for intelligent children who also have special needs. Although [the child] appears to be learning remarkably well in her home-school, co-op arrangement [sic]. I would suggest some considerations for her parents:

i. First, having her mother as her primary teacher sets their relationship up to have near-constant opportunities for conflict. Given the scope and intensity of [the child]'s behavioral challenges, having someone else function as her teacher will likely reduce the number of opportunities for conflict and may improve behavioral problems as [sic] home.

ii. Second, having autism means that [the child] is prone to social difficulties; exposure to a wide variety of neurotypical peers will be important for her learning and development.

iii. Third, [the child]'s behavioral problems are frequently being accommodated and prevented, which also precludes them from being treated. A more traditional school placement would both be responsible for teaching her methods to cope with frustration, start and complete tasks, and adjust to changes — and naturally provide her with opportunities to practice these skills. This can be accomplished in a homeschooling program, but care must be taken to plan for these needs and will likely necessitate collaboration between her mother and the local special education team.

d. The decision about whether to continue with homeschooling, consider public school options, or select a private school is a challenging one. [The child]'s parents are interested in her academic achievement, and wisely so. Still, her social and emotional development are just as important — potentially more so in an ever-changing workforce that relies less on human intelligence and more on interpersonal skills and flexibility. I would recommend prioritizing a placement that improves her behavioral regulation and offers social opportunities over one that offers gifted educational opportunities. Most research shows that gifted educational programs do not result in improved outcomes for students . [*6]. . "

The Court found the mother credible when she testified that she implemented the home- based recommendations set forth by Dr. Clark beginning on page 15 of his report. She shared Dr. Clark's evaluation with the child's gymnastics coach, archery coach, therapist, physician, social skills group, and Individualized Education Program (IEP) team through Ithaca City School District (ICSD). She asked the child's doctor to start the child on ADHD medication. In addition to continuing the child in gymnastics, archery, and two home schooling co-ops, the mother started the child in a local social skills group for young people with autism, to promote the child's social development. The mother informed the child of her diagnosis. The mother tries to remain calm during the child's episodes. She has read the books recommended by Dr. Clark. The mother researched private schools and initiated the IEP process with ICSD. While the father's preference is for private school, the mother's preference is either for continued home schooling or public school provided that the child is given an IEP. The Court finds that both parents are reasonable in their view of Dr. Clark's evaluation and the recommendations therein.

"Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine 'what is for the best interest of the child, and what will best promote [his or her] welfare and happiness' [internal citations omitted]." Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 (NY 1982). "In determining the best interests of a child, a court must consider various factors, including 'the parents' ability to provide a stable home environment for the child, the child's wishes, the parents' past performance, relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent' [internal citations omitted]." Herrera v. Pena-Herrera, 146 AD3d 1034, 1035 (3rd Dept.2017).

Further, the courts have held that where there is an "acrimonious relationship" and poor communication between the parties, joint custody is inappropriate. See Shearer v. Spisak, 90 AD3d 1346, 1347 (3rd Dept. 2011); Tylaeya C. v. Karl S., 187 AD3d 402 (1st Dept. 2020). In such cases, it appropriate to award sole custody to the parent who has been the "primary caregiver" to the child or children and to the parent who has "demonstrated a willingness to foster a relationship between the child and [the other parent]..." Keen v. Stephens, 114 AD3d 1029, 1031 (3rd Dept. 2014); Tylaeya C. v. Karl S., 187 AD3d 402 (1st Dept. 2020).

Here, both parties are fit and loving parents. They both have the ability to guide and provide for the child's overall well-being. However, their relationship is "acrimonious," and their communication is "poor," due, in large part, to the mother's refusal to include the father in their daughter's life. As the parent with temporary sole legal custody and placement since March of 2023, as well as the child's primary teacher in a home-schooling setting, the mother has had exclusive control over the child's academic and extra-curricular schedule. Unfortunately, she has made little effort to keep the father apprised of and involved in the child's activities, experiences, and accomplishments. She has failed to foster the child's relationship with the father. The Court is very concerned about this.

Nonetheless, the mother has always been the child's primary caregiver. She has assumed all responsibility for the child's home-schooling since the child was four years old. Taking into consideration the child's special needs, the mother's efforts to follow Dr. Clark's recommendations, and the position of the Attorney for the Child, the Court cannot at this time [*7]justify a major upheaval to this child's home and school life. Based upon the foregoing, the Court believes it is in the best interests of the child for the mother to be awarded sole legal custody and primary placement at this time. However, the Court will not hesitate to modify its order in the future if it becomes necessary.

In Joshua XX. v. Stefania YY., 218 AD3d 893 (3rd Dept. 2023), the Third Department affirmed the family court's transfer of legal and physical custody from the mother to the father. In that case, the Court found that joint custody was "unfeasible," stating, "[a]lthough joint custody is 'an aspirational goal in every custody matter,' it is abundantly clear that the parties are unable to effectively coparent (Matter of Christina E. v. Clifford F., 200 AD3d 1111, 1112, 160 N.Y.S.3d 124 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted])." Id. at 896. While the father had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and/or criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation five years prior, the trial court properly considered the family offense in its best interests as it was required to do. "Initially, the family offense finding against the father must be addressed, as 'the effect of domestic violence,' when 'proven by a preponderance of the evidence,' must be considered in determining a child's best interests (Matter of Aimee T. v. Ryan U., 173 AD3d 1377, 1379, 105 N.Y.S.3d 558 [3d Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]." Id. at 897. DRL § 240(1)(a). However, in its analysis, taking into consideration the anger management course completed by the father as well as his weekly therapy sessions, the court found that the family offense was "unlikely to recur" and that "the record does not indicate that the father presents a danger to the child." Id. The Third Department found that the family court properly transferred custody to the father because of the mother's frustration of the relationship between the father and the child including frequent changes to the exchange location, inappropriate behavior during exchanges including highlighting that the father was not present, failure to accommodate reasonable requests by the father, and encouraging the child to call her boyfriend "daddy."

Joshua XX. is very similar to the case at bar, where this Court finds that the father committed an isolated family offense years ago which, in light of the work the father has done in anger management and continues to do in therapy, is "unlikely to recur." Id. While this Court is not transferring custody to the father at this time, it could very well do so in the future, despite the father's commission of the 2021 "bed incident," were it to find the mother persists in obstructing and failing to foster the child's relationship with the father as it did in Joshua XX.

In Williams v. Rolf, 144 AD3d 1409 (3rd Dept. 2016), the Third Department affirmed the family court's award of sole custody to the father with limited, supervised visitation to the mother. There, the Court cited "the mother's consistent lack of understanding of her obligation to foster a healthy and meaningful relationship between the child and the father." Id. at 1413. Here, the Court finds a similar "lack of understanding" on the part of the mother, who consistently — and even as late as the June 5, 2024 hearing date — answered, "I'm not sure why that is my responsibility" when asked whether she was facilitating the child's visits with the father. In Williams, the Third Department noted, "A child's wishes are 'informative rather than dispositive' when the record supports a finding that a child has been manipulated by one of his or her parents and, as a result, the child's view of his or her relationship with the other parent is the 'product of that manipulation' (Matter of Gerber v. Gerber, 133 AD3d at 1138-1139, 21 N.Y.S.3d 386 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]." Id. at 1414. This Court finds some of the same manipulation at play here, and therefore, the child's expressed wishes are "informative" rather than "dispositive."

Finally, in Matter of Gerber v. Gerber, 133 AD3d 1133 (3rd Dept. 2015), the Third Department held that, " . . . although a best interests determination necessarily must be based upon the totality of the circumstances after giving due consideration to any number of relevant factors, evidence that one parent 'intentionally interfered with the [other] parent's relationship with the [child] is so inconsistent with the best interests of the [child] as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as [a] custodial parent' (Heather B. v. Daniel B., 125 AD3d 1157, 1160, 4 N.Y.S.3d 362 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]." Id. at 1137. While the Court does not find that the mother's obstruction of the father's relationship with the child was necessarily intentional, it is a close call. At the conclusion of the initial set of hearing dates in December of 2023, the Court was dangerously close to switching custody because the Court's initial concerns that the father was going to be deleted appeared to be coming to fruition. The Court could find itself in a similar position in the future, and the Court will not hesitate to act if it becomes necessary. As a result of the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the mother shall have sole legal custody and primary placement of the child; and it is further

ORDERED, that in making significant medical, dental, therapeutic, and educational decisions for the child, the mother shall consider the input of the father; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall have overnight visitation with the child at his current home on alternating weekends, from Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at 3:00 p.m., to commence Friday, July 12, 2024; and it is further

ORDERED, that father shall have overnight visitation with the child every Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. until Thursday at 10:30 a.m., and that during his visitation, the father shall transport the child to and from Syracuse for the child's Wednesday gymnastics class, staying to observe his child participate in the class; and it is further

ORDERED, that if gymnastics increases to more than two days per week, then the father shall transport/observe the child for additional gymnastics classes over and above the weekly Wednesday class as the parents are to immediately begin sharing gymnastics equally; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall share the child's archery activity equally, therefore the mother must keep the father apprised of the schedule for classes and practice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parents shall create a shared calendar which each of them shall update with the child's educational activities, extracurriculars, and medical appointments; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall transport the child to and from the mother's home for visitation and the aforementioned activities that he shares equally; and it is further

ORDERED, that the mother shall have the child for all Jewish holidays, and the father shall have the child for all Christian holidays (to include Christmas Eve); and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall split the December break equally each year; and it is further

ORDERED, that, in 2025, the mother shall have the child during the February school break and the father shall have the child during the March/April school break, with the parties to alternate these breaks in the succeeding years; and it is further

ORDERED, that beginning in the summer of 2025, and continuing for all succeeding summers, the parties shall share parenting time 50% in a week on/week off schedule; and it is further

ORDERED, that the mother shall have the child every Mother's Day, and the father shall have the child every Father's Day; and it is further

ORDERED, that the above schedule may be modified by mutual written agreement of the parties; and it is further

ORDERED, that the father shall have full, complete, and independent access to the medical, dental, and educational records and providers of the child, to include the right to attend medical appointments and any extracurricular activities of the child which parents are welcome to attend, except that the father shall not have access to any confidential communications between the child and her therapist; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall use their best efforts to cause the child's therapist to allocate up to five minutes combined for both parents in order for the parents to share relevant information with the therapist. The five minutes shall be divided equally between the parents for separate discussion, but if the parents agree, the five minutes may be combined into a joint discussion. The parents will not attempt to obtain the child's confidential communications from the therapist; and it is further

ORDERED, each parent shall have equal access to the portal for the child's therapist in order to share relevant information with the child's therapist; and it is further

ORDERED, that both parents shall cooperate and work with the Ithaca City School District in order to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the child; and it is further

ORDERED, that both parents shall copy or "cc" the other parent on any and all communications to providers of services regarding the child's medical health, dental health, extracurricular activities, and education/academics; and it is further

ORDERED, the child and father are permitted to email/message one another; and it is further

ORDERED, the child shall be permitted to have reasonable, periodic phone/FaceTime contact with the mother during the father's parenting time; and it is further

ORDERED, that the mother shall encourage the child's reconciliation and relationship with the father; and it is further

ORDERED, that the mother shall not discuss with the child relocation to California; and it is further

ORDERED, that neither party shall discuss Court proceedings with the child, and upon such inquiries by the child to a party, the party shall contact the child's attorney so that the attorney for the child may discuss such inquiries, as appropriate; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall with reasonable promptness provide the other with the itinerary of any trip with the child out of New York State; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parents, in regulating their own behavior, shall abide by the following:

Bill of Rights for Children Whose Parents Are Separated

1. The right not to be asked to "choose sides" between their parents.

2. The right not to be told the details of bitter or nasty legal proceedings going on between their parents.

3. The right not to be told "bad things" about the other parent's personality or character.

4. The right to privacy when talking to either parent on the telephone.

5. The right not to be cross-examined by one parent after spending time with the other [*8]parent.

6. The right not to be asked to be a messenger from one parent to the other.

7. The right not to be asked by one parent to tell the other parent untruths.

8. The right not to be used as a confidant regarding the legal proceedings between the parties.

9. The right to express feelings, whatever those feelings may be.

10. The right to choose not to express certain feelings.

11. The right to be protected from parental warfare.

12. The right not to be made to feel guilty for loving both parents; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties have the affirmative duty to prevent anyone in the child's presence from violating the rights of the child in the immediately preceding paragraph.