This case concerns a matrimonial matter where the primary issue is the custody of the two children, B., age 9 and M., age 7. Although the primary consideration is what is in the best interest of the children, the threshold issue to be determined is the mental health of the defendant mother Francine Verhagen, and her capacity and fitness to care for her children.

The parties married in 2015 and separated in 2022. By temporary court orders issued by Justices Mary Slisz, Michael Siragusa and Peter Allen Weinmann, plaintiff father Jason Hill has custody and cares for his two daughters. He is a blue-collar worker who recently lost his job at Sumitomo Rubber, but is now working another full time job as a trained carpenter. Defendant Francine Verhagen is a former banker and financial employee. She has been unemployed for the past several years except for a current part-time job as a line cook, and is living at her parents' home. She has been issued temporary orders by the same judges permitting visitation several days a week, initially supervised, but now unsupervised by stipulation amongst the parties. After a tumultuous relationship, Angel's Monitoring agency refuses to do business with Verhagen. None of the visitation Court orders permit overnights.

Verhagen has been represented by the following six lawyers successively:

1. Elizabeth A. Landwehr, Esq.

2. Daniel J. Schuller, Esq.

3. Thomas P. Setser, Esq.

4. Elaina M. Monte, Esq.

5. William R. Hites, Esq.

6. Timothy J. Hennessy, Esq.

She is now representing herself, making prolific use of artificial intelligence software Chat GPT. Although the matter at bar is over three years old, there have been 985 document filings in the state e-filing system and over 50 motions or Orders To Show Cause filed thus far, mostly by Francine Verhagen. Typically, in a matrimonial matter that concludes after three or four years in the New York court system, a case has approximately 100 documents filed and rarely more than 5-10 motions and Orders To Show Cause filed.

Moreover, defendant Verhagen has filed a lawsuit against Judges Mary Slisz, Michael Siragusa, Peter Allen Weinmann, and various assorted court personnel, in both State Supreme Court, Albany County (Index No. 906652-25) and the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Sinatra, J. Index No. 25-CV-791). The matter in State Supreme Court, Albany County was dismissed on December 4, 2025 (NYSCEF #168).

Furthermore, defendant Verhagen has filed several complaints with the Attorney Grievance Committee covering the Eighth Judicial District complaining about the behavior of plaintiff's counsel Michelle Bergevin, bankruptcy counsel Patrick Balkin, and attorney for the children (AFC) Carol Flaherty. Those complaints have each been dismissed. Additionally, defendant Verhagen has filed countless applications for poor person status and emergency applications to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (CA-25-01362). All have been denied. Finally, defendant Verhagen has emailed all of the above judges and lawyers and various court personnel in addition to administrative and supervising judges over 200 times. None of the above-stated facts are controverted.

The Court held a trial concerning custody of the two children on October 9th and 10th, 2025. Five witnesses testified in total. The first witness to testify was Mary Lou Aroune, the school counselor at the children's school. The children's babysitter Alexa Jackson testified, as did her mother Tracy Jackson. Sgt. Philip Nesbitt of the NYS Police also testified, as did plaintiff Jason Hill. Plaintiff submitted approximately 25 documents and videos into evidence and defendant submitted approximately 7 documents into evidence.

Additionally, this Court considered very thorough post-trial briefs submitted by plaintiff's counsel, the defendant herself, and a very strong product by the attorney for the children.

The trial testimony concerned five significant topics which shed abundant light on the plaintiff's parenting and the defendant's parenting: (a) the May 2022 Letchworth State Park incident resulting in defendant's psychiatric evaluation; (b) the June 2023 pit bull dog bite incident; (c) the April 2024 eclipse; (d) the state of the marital residence while defendant had custody of the children; (e) videotaping the judges; (f) the Court-ordered psychiatric report of Dr. Vincent Croglio.

In any custody proceeding, the Court's paramount concern is to determine what is in the best interests of the children (Matter of Soto v. Marrero, 214 AD3d 814 [2d Dept 2023]; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Martinez v. Driscoll, 209 AD3d 653 [2d Dept 2022]).

In Matter of Gooler v. Gooler (107 AD3d 712 [2d Dept 2013]) the Appellate Division noted that Courts consider numerous factors as to what custody or access arrangement would serve the best interest of the children. Those factors include, but are not limited to:

(1) Quality of the home environment and parental guidance each parent provides the child.

(2) Financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child.

(3) Ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional andintellectual development.

(4) The demonstrated parenting ability and demonstrated fitness of the parties.

(5) The love, affection and nurturing given by each party to the child and the emotional bond between the child and each party.

(6) The willingness and ability of each party to put the child's needs ahead of their own.

(7) The willingness and ability of each party to facilitate a close and optimum relationship between the child and the other party.

(8) The individual need of the child or the desires or preferences of the child.

(9) Any other factors deemed relevant to the custody dispute e.g. domestic violence and the impact on the child (see Matter of Bowe v. Bowe, 124 AD3d 645 [2d Dept 2015]).

The mental stability of a parent is undoubtedly a factor to consider in what is the best interests of the children, as held by Matthew L. v. Sierra N. (229 AD3d 866, [3d Dept 2024]; Angelica CC v. Ronald DD, 214 AD3d 1091 [3d Dept 2023]; 220 AD3d 1064 [3d Dept 2023]).

Finally, it is also well established that the trial court is given great deference to assess the character and credibility of the parties (Id. Soto (Supra); Eschbach (Supra); Martinez (Supra); Gooler (Supra); Bowe (Supra); see also Matter of Johnson v. Pritchard, 242 AD3d 1561 [4th Dept 2025]).

Witnesses Mary Lou Aroune, Alexa Jackson, Tracy Jackson, and Sgt. Philip Nesbitt all testified to a cascading series of events in May 2022. Early in the week, bizarre behavior from the defendant mother Verhagen began to unfold when she announced on social media that she was a victim of sex trafficking from her husband and father. Verhagen had contacted WGRZ Channel 2 stating that she needed the FBI and DEA urgently at 81 Pearl Terrace at Elma New York, as she was in danger and there were sex trafficking victims present in her basement along with little children and a meth lab. Defendant also publicized this on social media. Police reports entered into evidence also outlined instances that week where the defendant called police to report that someone was lacing her marijuana with meth. She asked the police to test the marijuana, but they declined.

Ms. Aroune, the school counselor, testified that sometime on the morning of May 25, 2022, the defendant called the school nurse. Defendant's speech was rapid and disjointed and she was not making sense. Defendant insisted she was being followed and needed to get away. Defendant called several times, hung up, and the counselor would call her back. While the counselor kept defendant on the phone long enough to convince her to stop driving and pull over, the police triangulated her position by pinging her cell phone. Evidently the defendant and her two children had driven all the way to Letchworth State Park, also known as the Grand Canyon of the East.

Sgt. Philip Nesbitt testified that he found defendant and her two children in the middle of the park. The defendant informed the state trooper that she was being sex trafficked by her husband and father. She further indicated that the sex trafficking involved her two children and there was a meth lab in the basement. Nesbitt transported the defendant and her children to Wyoming County Community Hospital where they were met by the plaintiff.

An approximately 50-page report from the hospital entered as Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 authored by Dr. Mark Varallo indicated that defendant Francine Verhagen had been admitted for [*2]bizarre behavior and delusional beliefs. Defendant had ADHD, had been on Adderall for 15 years, and her thought processes seemed to be rapid and confused. She presented as disorganized, pressured speech, tangential with delusional beliefs with a paranoid flavor lacking any insight. Patient was presenting as being manic. Her judgment according to the report was severely impaired. The doctor prescribed a dose of Risperdal and Hydroxyzine, and Trazodone. Furthermore, the report indicated that the defendant had been exposed to 8 different medications in the recent past. The hospital discharged her a full week later with a final diagnosis of "bipolar disorder, manic, severe, with psychotic features."

The plaintiff testified that on June 11, 2023, defendant Francine's pitbull bit daughter B. in the face. Plaintiff learned about the injury when the defendant texted him that B. has sustained a "minor boo boo." Plaintiff's Exhibit 21 is a photograph of the dog bite mark on B.'s cheek. The dog also bit B.'s nose. Plaintiff took B. to the pediatrician, where B. was prescribed antibiotics. The pediatrician indicated that there would be a scar. As a result of the incident, the court order, signed on August 1, 2023, obligated defendant to keep the dog away from her daughters. Plaintiff father wanted to get rid of the dog because of the incident, but the defendant mother refused.

In view of the upcoming eclipse effecting Western New York, plaintiff testified that the defendant Verhagen indicated she was going to violate the temporary court order pertaining to custody and visitation. She indicated that she was going to bring the children to a park for an eclipse party and that she could not guarantee the return of the children because of the anticipated mayhem and the congested traffic that the eclipse would likely produce. As a result, the plaintiff, with the assistance of the police, resisted transferring the children to the defendant for that weekend. The court (Siragusa, J.) granted plaintiff's application to temporarily suspend unsupervised access and reimplement supervised access until completion of a psychiatric report.

Plaintiff's exhibit # 24 is a video made by plaintiff and defendant's father upon the plaintiff's departure from the marital residence 81 Pearl Terrace, Elma New York in 2023. Defendant Verhagen had been living there with the two daughters for the past year. Plaintiff testified about dirty diapers and tampons piled up around the house that looked as if they had been there for a year. Rodent droppings and mold were prevalent in the cabinets and living areas of the home. Piles of garbage and dirty laundry and toys were strewn about. Dog waste litters the home. Defendant's own social media reported that she had been sleeping in a tent in the backyard.

Plaintiff's exhibit 23 is a video filmed and narrated by defendant Verhagen. It depicts Judge Michael Siragusa and his law clerk and another judge chatting in public right on Niagara Square. The defendant narrates the video commenting that these judges abused children for profit and are creeps. The defendant called them corrupt. The video has been freely available on the internet, and on defendant's Facebook and Instagram accounts.

As a result of Justice Siragusa's court order requiring a psychiatric report before scheduling the custody trial, defendant Verhagen submitted to a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Vincent Croglio, DO at WNY Psychiatry and Counseling Associates. Dr. Croglio evaluated defendant Verhagen on March 16, 2025. He issued a 10-page report which is included with defendant's exhibit C. The report lists manic episodes characterized by delusional thinking, paranoia-driven fears concerning the children, and hallucinogenic beliefs. The report includes collateral interviews with a representative from Angel Monitoring Agency, the plaintiff father, the attorney for the children Carol Flaherty, one of defendant Verhagen's former therapists, and two of the defendant's present therapists. Dr. Croglio diagnosed bipolar #1 disorder with psychotic feature. He indicated that there was long term risk of occurrence, delusional beliefs and psychotic behavior from the documented episode from May 2022. Finally, she is at a risk of experiencing other episodes in the future.

Finally, Plaintiff testified about the decline of the defendant's mental health resulting in her physically assaulting him in July 2022 when she dug her nails behind his ears until drawing blood. On that same date, plaintiff testified, defendant Verhagen held a knife to her own throat stating that she would cut herself and blame it on the plaintiff. Plaintiff was shocked at the assault and also at the timing because B.'s birthday party was scheduled to begin with several guests invited — less than one hour away.

Plaintiff also testified that defendant Verhagen wanted him removed from the house and that he was ultimately served with an Order of Protection which defendant had applied for ex-parte in March 2022. In June 2022, Supreme Court Justice Mary Slisz vacated the Order of Protection.

Ever since the May 2022 Letchworth State Park incident, plaintiff has managed the children's schooling, their extracurricular activities, and their medical appointments. He has been the sole financial provider. The school counselor and both babysitters testified that plaintiff father was a loving, diligent and caring parent. Both babysitters testified that the children's behavior, hygiene, and general welfare have improved dramatically since they have lived solely with their father. They also noted that after visits with their mother, their behavior and demeanor declined.

Plaintiff finally testified that the communication with Verhagen is always filled with vitriol on her part. She is demeaning and hostile. She posts defamatory information about him and others on social media. She also posts defamatory information about the babysitters and plaintiff's girlfriend. Plaintiff is frustrated and unable to make joint decisions with her.

Reviewing all of the trial testimony, evidence and exhibits, briefs and history of this case, it is evident that the defendant mother has intermittent and re-occurring mental health episodes. Perhaps when she is on medication that subsides. However, it is unclear if and when the medication is being used. Both the psychiatrist at Wyoming County Community Hospital and Dr. Croglio concur and confirm there is a risk of further mental health episodes. Accordingly, there is a risk to the children whenever she is with them. This is not to say that defendant does not love her children or that she should not have regular and meaningful visits with them. She loves them deeply and should have regular and meaningful visits with them.

Applying the 9 factors of custody determinations to the facts of circumstances at bar:

(1) The plaintiff renting an apartment for himself and the daughters, and demonstrating no mental health issues, and no vicious dog present, presents a more stable environment.

(2) The plaintiff is working full time and drawing an income to support the girls, the defendant is not.

(3) The defendant's demonstrated mental health episodes and cavalier attitude toward harboring a vicious dog, coupled with a lack of sanitation and hygiene as captured by plaintiff's video evidence, reflect serious question as to the defendant's ability to provide for the children's emotional and intellectual development.

(4) The demonstrated parenting ability and fitness of the mother seem compromised by her mental health illness, whereas no such issues seem evident with the father.

(5) Both mother and father appear to equally love and nurture the children, and provide a strong emotional bond with the children, as demonstrated by the factual scenarios discussed, and the opinion and recommendations of the AFC.

(6) The plaintiff's trial testimony reflects his ability to put his children's needs ahead of his own, in contradistinction to the defendant's behavior and court motions, trying to undermine the father's interests.

(7) The plaintiff father is able to facilitate a close and optimum relationship between the children and their mother by making visitation arrangements and refusing to disrespect the mother to the children, but the mother's behavior does not reflect the same. Rather, the mother's conduct appears to be the opposite, fostering a negative and hostile view of the father to his children.

(8) The needs of the children are to have both parents in their lives, while also having stability and harmony.

(9) The presence of a vicious dog, coupled with the father's single allegation of domestic violence against the mother, causes the Court to be hyper-sensitive and concerned with the physical safety of the children when they are with their mother.

In conclusion, applying the aforementioned 9 factors to what is in the best interest of the children, B. and M., this Court awards final sole custody and medical and educational decision-making authority to plaintiff father with the following terms of visitation for the defendant mother:

(1) Mondays and Wednesdays: 3pm — 7pm

(2) Fridays: 3pm to 9pm

(3) Tuesdays, Thursdays: 15-minute maximum telephone or video call

(4) Weekends and holidays: alternating 10 am — 4pm

(5) No overnight visitation

(6) No dogs permitted to be present when children are visiting with mother

(7) Children may not leave Erie County absent authorization of the Court

(8) Defendant may not be present at any medical/dental/specialist appointments for the children

(9) Defendant is permitted to attend the children's school functions and extracurricular activities without causing a disruption

(10) Plaintiff must certify quarterly that defendant is complying with this Court order

(11) Defendant must certify quarterly that she is undergoing mental health counseling and taking all prescribed medication

Trial on the equitable distribution portion of this case shall be June 11, 2026, subject to [*3]confirmation by counsel. A status conference in person is hereby scheduled for March 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

So ordered.