Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on May 28, 2026

Index No. 350047/2014

Ariel D. Chesler, J.

[*1]

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 017) 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 282 were read on this motion to/for CUSTODY & VISITATION.

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

INTRODUCTION

This case raises questions essential to custody matters. For example: What is the true role of the Court in custody matters? Are Courts meant to change hearts and minds? To heal the past and the future? To force a relationship into being? To glue together broken, fractured relationships? Can a Court guarantee the results of a therapeutic process or a timeline for such process? What is a Court to do with a parent that resists processes, interventions, and the advice and guidance of legal and mental health professional? Is a teenager an object to be directed as adults see fit or a psychological and emotionally complex person who must be given due consideration? How should a Court consider a parent who ignores the humanity and autonomy of [*2]their child? How should repeated violations of custody agreements and Court orders be treated? What orders from a Court would be appropriate for a strong-willed child who is nearly an adult, and who has expressed valid fears and concerns about their parent? How might the Court factor a parent's conspiratorial thinking and refusal to engage and take accountability?

Sometimes, foolishly, with the greatest intentions, Courts attempt impossible tasks in custodial matters with a sense of hope and optimism, and with the best interests of the children and the wellbeing of families involved foremost in our minds. Some litigants may come before us expecting healing or the transformation of people or redemption or retribution or a miracle or an answer from God. But, in such matters, we are powerless and out of our jurisdiction.

Ultimately, if the family members and lawyers and mediators and mental health professionals and time itself do not lead to healing or a resolution, the Court must make a legal determination on custody and access. It is this ultimate legal determination where the court's power actually resides, and it is the true role of the court to determine custody and access based on the credited evidence and current reality, not based on the past or on efforts and hopes.

This custody modification matter has involved many efforts, and many good intentions, and many hopes of some resolution, and, above all, a significant amount of time. Now, the Court is called upon to make a determination in the absence of a resolution reached by the parties. At the center of this litigation is the life and best interests of a seventeen-year-old girl, nearly a legal adult, who holds her own strong position.

Although this family has had many rounds of litigation since 2014, the custodial concerns raised in this latest matter have been litigated since 2022. This has involved numerous appearances, many motions and also efforts at resolution, and the utilization of therapeutic processes. Following an in camera meeting with the child in November 2024, a custody modification hearing was held over a number of days in late 2025, and written summations were submitted to the Court in January 2026.

BACKGROUND

The parties were married in 2000 and divorced in 2016. They had two children — H.Y., now 21 years old and a junior at [REDACTED] College, and B.Y., who was 17 years old at the time of the hearing and a junior in high school at [REDACTED] School in Brooklyn.

In 2014, the parties' divorce action was commenced and on December 1, 2014, they entered into a Parental Access and Custody Agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, the parties shared joint legal decision-making, with the Mother having primary residential custody of both children. The Father's parenting time included two dinners per week, alternate weekends, holidays/vacations, and two weeks in the summer.

In 2019, following concerns with the mother's repeated interference with his time, the Father sought an award of primary residential custody. Thereafter, on March 4, 2019, the parties entered into an Amended and Restated Parental Access and Custody Agreement that resolved their then custody dispute (Pl. Ex. 1).

Notably, the Amended Custody Agreement expressly addresses the Mother's interference with the Father's parenting time and included provisions that were designed to prohibit her from continuing to do so. Among other things, the parties agreed that Judith White, Esq. would serve as the parties' Parenting Coordinator. Ms. White's responsibilities included working with the Father and the Mother three times per year to set a parenting schedule for the upcoming fall, spring and summer, so that the parents, as well as the children, would know when and from [*3]where the Father was to pick up and drop off the Children.

The Amended Custody Agreement also prohibits the use of abbreviations, acronyms or coded languages, or from otherwise obscuring the meaning of emails when communicating with each other (Pl. Ex. 1, Article 2.11(l).) This provision was included because the Mother would often communicate over text and email messages in ways that the Father could not understand, including her using bizarre acronyms (9/15/25 Tr., p. 143).

Most significant to this litigation, the Amended Custody Agreement expressly recognizes that any interference by the Mother with the Father's parenting time would result in a change in residential custody from the Mother to the Father. Specifically, Article 2.7 of the Amended Agreement provides that:

The Mother acknowledges that in the forensic evaluation report dated June 7, 2018, Dr. Sarah L. Weiss concluded that the Mother had interfered with the Father's parenting time by, among other conduct, not facilitating transitions of the Children between the Mother and Father, and delaying the Father's parenting time and withholding the children from him. Dr. Weiss further professionally opined that future acts of interference by the Mother with the Father's parenting time shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of residential custody from the Mother to the Father. Notwithstanding anything in this Custody and Access Agreement to the contrary, the parties have entered into this Custody and Access Agreement with the understanding that, consistent with Dr. Weiss's recommendations, future acts of interference by the Mother with the Father's parenting time, if proven, shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of residential custody from the Mother to the Father.

MOTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

According to the Father, although the Amended Agreement improved his access, the mother began to interfere with his time again in early 2022. Specifically, on January 21, 2022, a Friday, the Father was scheduled to pick up the children from the Mother's Manhattan residence at 6 PM and return them on Sunday evening. When he arrived, the children were not in the building lobby as they normally would be. The children also did not answer their cell phones which had been confiscated by the Mother. When the Father finally reached the Mother on her cell phone she provided various excuses over a two hour period as to why the children could not come with him.

Ultimately, after this two hour stand-off, and involvement of the parent coordinator and counsel, the mother relented and allowed the children to leave the apartment. H.Y. was distraught and in tears and B.Y. was visibly angry. The children refused to return to the Mother on Sunday but the Father persuaded them to do so on condition he seek an attorney to represent their interests.

Days later, on or about January 26, 2022, the Father filed a motion seeking, inter alia, to enforce the provisions of the Amended Agreement, to approve the schedule approved by the parenting coordinator, and to appoint an attorney for the children (P. Ex. 2). In a February 1, 2022 interim order, the Court ordered the parties to follow the schedule approved by the parenting coordinator but permitted them to make mutually agreed upon changes to the schedule (P. Ex. 3).

The Court appointed counsel for the children (AFC) on or about March 1, 2022 (Pl. Ex. [*4]4). Notably, H.Y. turned 18 in September 2022 and no longer was subject to the Court's jurisdiction at that time.

On March 9, 2022, the AFC filed an emergency order to show cause which the Court heard ex parte (Def. Ex. D). Based on the serious concerns raised, the court directed that the Father have immediate sole custody of B.Y., and that the Mother stay away from B.Y.'s school pending a supervised visitation schedule.

Two days later the Court issued an interim order directing that the Mother shall have liberal, reasonable phone/Facetime access with the children, directing the parties to immediately prepare a stipulation on interim access, and directing the AFC to finalize and arrange therapeutic intervention/visits as soon as possible (Def. Ex. E).

Then, on April 25, 2022, when the parties failed to or were unable to submit a stipulation as ordered, the Court ordered the Mother and children to engage in a therapeutic intervention with Elysa Newman. The Court also ordered that the Mother would continue to have phone access with the children, and that the Father would provide the Mother weekly updates regarding the children as things arise or occur (see Pl. Ex. 6; Def. Ex. F).

When the intervention with Newman appeared unsuccessful, the Court ordered a mental health evaluation of the Mother, and appointed Alan Ravitz, M.D. to conduct the evaluation (Pl. Ex. 11). The evaluation was completed on or around April 27, 2023 (Pl. Ex. 36).

In addition, following months of debate, discussion, appearances and communications, in May 2023 the Court appointed Karen R. Kieserman, M.D. as a family therapist to address reunification between the Mother and B.Y. (Pl. Ex. 17).

Also, in April 2023, in the midst of the litigation and ongoing reunification efforts, the Court had to consider additional motions relating to the Mother's efforts to sabotage B.Y.'s high school application process (Pl. Ex. 15). The Court in fact had to order the Mother not to communicate with a certain school being considered (Pl. Ex. 16). The Court also had to consider other motions relating to concerns about the Mother's efforts to operate around the parental access order of the Court by injecting herself into B.Y.'s school, school events, extracurricular events, camps or other activities, as well as issues concerning renewal of the child's passport (see e.g. AFC Ex. XV).

THE IN CAMERA

As noted, the Court held an in camera meeting with B.Y. in November 2024. The Court finds that B.Y. presented as a mature, intelligent, strong-willed child. She was very clear about her fears and her desires, and her testimony lined up with and corroborated evidence presented to the Court at the hearing. The Court also notes that given the child's age and maturity at the time of the in camera and the hearing it gives strong consideration to the child's position as articulated by the child. Relatedly, the Court gives serious consideration to the position of the AFC.

THE HEARING

At the hearing, the Court heard from both parties, Elysa Newman, LCSW, Karen Kieserman, M.D., Alan Ravitz, M.D., A.G., M.L., and B.B.. The Court also admitted into evidence notes from Dr. Kieserman, reports from Newman, and a report from Dr. Ravitz.

The Court finds the court appointed witnesses — Newman, Kieserman, and Ravitz — to be credible, thoughtful, insightful and helpful to the Court's determination. While the Court generally found A.G., M.L., and B.B. to be credible, their testimony was limited and entitled to little weight as they could offer no meaningful information about the key issues in the case.

Regarding the Father, the Court generally finds him to be credible. However, it is noted [*5]that there were moments he was guarded and not entirely frank about flaws or mistakes.

Regarding the Mother, the Court finds her testimony to be very concerning and troubling and difficult to credit except for basic undisputed areas such as her role as the primary parent for most of the children's early years. Much of the Mother's testimony consisted of her attempts to make legal points about hearsay or her view of the Court process, her engaging in conspiratorial thinking, and her failing to honestly take account of her role in the conflict. She was combative and disorganized in her answers. She also refused to provide straightforward answers. She required redirection from the Court numerous times throughout the hearing in part because it appeared she was refusing to ever look towards the Father or his counsel. She also had to be directed to answer questions repeatedly. She had strange interactions with a Court officer who she attempted to whisper to, and even blurted out in anger to the entire room. At other times, her body was faced entirely away from this jurist, and at others positioned entirely towards this jurist. In a number of instances she seemed to be staring this jurist down.

But more notable than the above, it was apparent that the Mother presented very differently on different days of the trial and even at different moments. At some times she was quiet, even whispery and could hardly be heard. At other times, she was angry, forceful, and asserted control of the room. On some occasions she exuded a darkness, and an icy cold presence. Finally, at the end of her testimony she displayed tears. These changes in personality and demeanor observed by the Court also lined up with other testimony the Court heard about the Mother's dissociative episodes and her sudden, frightening mood changes.

A. Dr. Kieserman

At the hearing, Dr, Kieserman described the issue between the Mother and the child as a "severe parent-child contact problem" and explained that her efforts are focused on repairing and rebuilding a healthy relationship and connection between them (Tr. 9/5/2025 p. 14). Her process includes meeting with the estranged parent "to understand the parent's insight into the cause of the problem as well as additional thoughts that she has about ways to remedy the problem and to understand, in general, her background and her beliefs that may have contributed to her understanding of the problem" (Id. at 16-17). For similar reasons, she meets with the child to understand "what her experience was living with her mother that lead her to feel so strongly about that."

In addition, she considered collateral evidence from the other parent, and siblings. This was important in this case because this could provide information that would support, refute, or add texture to what the child said (Id. at 17-18).

She also considered reports from mental health professionals to understand the history, including Dr. Sara Weiss's forensic report from 2018 and Dr. Ravitz's 2023 report (Id. at 20-21). She also spoke to the child's pediatrician who confirmed she is healthy (Id. at 23). In addition, she spoke to the parent coordinator, Judy White, and to Elysa Newman (Id. at 24-25).

Kieserman found the Father to be thoughtful and self-reflective and was supportive of the child having the nest possible relationship with her mother (Id. at 27-28). The child was also engaged in the sessions and appeared to be thriving in many respects. The child's level of functioning was exceptionally high (Id. at 29).

B.Y. described her mother as unpredictable and frequent to anger. She also said her Mother didn't listen to her and she was concerned her Mother might not respect boundaries (Id.at 29). She also reported that she was happier and more comfortable being away from her Mother, as did H.Y., the child's older sister. H.Y., also reported concerns with the Mother's changing [*6]mood states (Id. at 30). H.Y. said the Mother's "mood was either angry, very angry, furious or superficially sweet in a way that [she] did not feel was genuine," and that the Mother was not able to acknowledge her anger (Id. at 30). Both girls reported that they spent a lot of energy worrying about the Mother's mood states and emotionally preparing for them (Id. at 30-31).

H.Y. reported that multiple times the Mother said "Your father is going to burn in hell." and, "I know you will have a bad day" (Id. at 31). She also explained there was "little room to even have a conversation with her mother on any subject where they would have differing opinions" (Id. at 31).

Dr. Kieserman also spoke with Dr. Chambers, the Mother's treating psychiatrist (Id. at 32-33). Dr. Chambers also joined the Mother in sessions which made her more comfortable.

Dr. Kieserman's reports did not describe the Mother as having demonstrated or developed good insight about her contributions to the problems in her relationship with B.Y. (Id. at 36). In fact, the Mother's focus in the session was what others had done. The Mother also told her the "Court awarding interim custody of [B.Y. and H.Y.] to their father was a travesty that was being perpetrated by a cabal of gangsters" (Id. at 37). The Mother directed a lot of anger at the AFC and believed she had been villainized by others, and that the AFC and Judy White were vindictive (Id. at 37-38). She largely attributed her separation from her children to unfair and unethical practices by the professionals involved in effectuating that separation (Id. at 39).

Dr. Kieserman agreed with Dr. Ravitz's opinion that the Mother had to recognize and take responsibility for her contribution to the problem in order for there to be a reconciliation (Id.at 40). Dr. Kieserman also observed that the Mother presented as aggressive, demanding and overly critical, and had difficulty acknowledging perimeters and rules (Id. at 40). In addition, Dr. Kieserman found that the Mother had difficulty understanding that B.Y.'s normal rebellious teenage behavior was part of her natural development (Id. at 41).

In June 2023, Dr. Kieserman told the Mother and Dr. Chambers that B.Y. would only consider meeting with her Mother if the Mother provided a written apology showing an understanding that her behavior was unacceptable, upsetting and frightening to B.Y. (Id. at 41). But, Dr. Chambers advised the Mother could not write such an apology because she did not believe she had done anything wrong. The Mother did not provide a letter at that time. Nor did she when the idea was raised again in December 2023; Dr. Chambers still did not believe the Mother was able to write such a letter and that would it would take a lengthy therapy for that to happen (Id. at 42-43). Thus, based on the information from Dr. Chambers, Dr. Kieserman believed there should be no interaction between the Mother and B.Y. Also in November 2023, the Mother wrote a letter to H.Y. addressing various concerns but was unable to apologize (Id. at 45).

In April 2024, the Mother sent an email saying both children had been brainwashed and blamed the Father. Dr. Kieserman found that "whatever negative feelings [the Father] had had about [the Mother], he was very willing to consider what was best for [B.Y.] and notably and positively, you know, changed his stance, his attitude" (Id. at 134).

In May 2024, B.Y. said she would accept any letter from her mother even if it did not contain an apology. Even still, Dr. Chambers relayed that the Mother was concerned about these legal proceedings and did not want to apologize or show any regret for actions she had taken that she thought were acceptable (Id. at 46). The Mother was also unable to emotionally handle a response from her daughter (Id. at 48-49).

In June 2024, Dr. Kieserman reported to the Court that the best path was to give the [*7]Mother time she needs in her own treatment to "integrate her internal and external states in her role as parent in order to fully engage with [B.Y.] in the life that [B.Y.] had created for herself" (Id. at 50).

Finally, in August 2024, the Mother purportedly wrote a letter that contained the word remorse but it was not an apology (Id. at 51; AFC Ex I). The letter did not acknowledge erratic emotional states, denigrating the Father, or unpredictable or uncontrollable outbursts of anger (Id. at 51-52).^FN1 Both children were "frightened, anxious and, in [B.Y.'s] case, angry about the mood fluctuations that were unpredictable and that [the Mother] may not have been fully aware of, but what happened with a frequency, according to [B.Y.], at least four times a week" (Id. at 52).

Then, in September 2024, Dr. Chambers reported that the Mother had an extreme reaction to being separated from her daughter and could be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder which included dissociative episodes. A "[d]issociative episode is when people get separated from their feelings of being themselves, feelings of being connected to reality. It is often an extreme response to stress or sometimes trauma. It can affect memory. It can affect ability to participate in what's going on around you" (Id. at 53). In fact, both Dr. Chambers and Dr. Kieserman observed the Mother dissociate.

In September 2024, Dr. Chambers still expressed concern about how the Mother might react if she met with B.Y.. He thus advised he needed more time with the Mother (Id. at 54). Thereafter, the Mother sent eight emails to Dr. Kieserman. In an email on October 11, 2024 she blamed Dr. Kieserman for there being no reconciliation with B.Y. (Id. at 55-56).

At that time, Dr, Kieserman withdrew from her role. However, she continued to receive emails from the Mother and Dr. Kieserman reached out to the Court for guidance (Id. at 57).

Dr. Kieserman believed the Mother was moving in the right direction and making progress (Id. at 58). But the Mother's own psychiatrist did not think the Mother was ready to meet with B.Y. Yet, Dr. Kieserman opined that after a slow and hard process, the Mother could be prepared for a reconciliation. Dr. Kieserman conceded the Mother never showed an ability to work cooperatively in the past (Id. at 60-61).

While Dr. Kieserman agreed the situation was generally heartbreaking for all, she noted that for B.Y. it was complicated because contact with her mother was hurtful (Id. at 64). B.Y. had not spoken to her mother in three and a half years at the time of the hearing. But, Dr. Kieserman was not of the opinion that ordering immediate contact in 2022 would have been positive or productive (Id. at 66). She acknowledged that the longer an estrangement goes on the harder it is to rebuild a relationship (Id. at 67).

Although there were never any physical abuse allegations or a history of violence, the Father expressed concerns that the Mother would cause harm to him or the children out of anger. On one occasion, he had an Easter basket sent by the Mother to the girls to the authorities for safety purposes (Id. at 74-75). Kieserman in fact wrote in one of her reports that "Interestingly, just as [the Mother] has a negative story line in her head about [B.Y.], which stokes her fears for [*8][B.Y.] wellbeing without her assurance, [B.Y.] also has a negative story about her mother in her head. [B.Y.] thinks that her mother could physically harm her without any evidence to support that." (Id. at 75). It was possible the Father was in part responsible for this thinking from B.Y.

The Mother was the primary parent until 2022 and both children are good students, and respectful young women. The Mother transmitted her values of hard work and ethics to the children. She was also affectionate and supported the school community (Id. at 79-80).

The Mother has very strong Catholic values and had the children attended Catholic school but B.Y. wanted to be in a secular school moving forward (Id. at 81). The Mother was also a strict parent. She insisted on walking the children to school, and placed limits on cellphone use and what the children could wear. These rules were not "problematic" for Dr. Kieserman (Id. at 83-84).

Dr. Kieserman opined that the Mother's traumatic incidents made her overprotective of her daughters. These incidents included murder of one of the Mother's best friends in Boston, having to flee home when the World Trade Center towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, having a miscarriage, and the family living in London during the 2005 London bombing. The Mother has more reasons to be fearful than another parent might be, but it was her responsibility to separate her "own experiences and their own reactions to their experiences from the experiences that they say their children are having" (Id. at 85-86, 88).

If Dr. Kieserman were re-engaged to work with the family, she would propose an initial remote contact between the Mother and B.Y.; each could have someone supportive with them, and the session could be ended if it were distressing. She would also encourage B.Y. to have individual therapy, and would speak with the Mother's therapist to guide the Mother to prioritize the needs of the child (Id. at 90-91). Eventually, if this worked it would increase in frequency and move to supervised in-person contact (Id. at 105).^FN2 There are concerns about whether the Mother could meaningfully participate in such a plan or be sensitive to the child's timeline (Id. at 115-16). There would be other concerns about the Mother remaining in consistent treatment with Dr. Chambers (Id. at 121).

It is unclear what the Father's role in the process could be. The Mother would have to work on her fear of the Father which is supported by no evidence. The one time the parents met together, with Dr. Kieserman and Dr. Chambers, the Mother had dissociated during that session. The Mother also communicated about how frightened she had been (Id. at 110). During that session, the Mother "really couldn't look up, couldn't make eye contact, was kind of scribbling with papers. She didn't talk about B.Y she seemed incredibly distressed and withdrawn. Her general demeanor was worrisome. Dr. Chambers substantially talked to her afterward and said, "What happened during the session?" And [the Mother] said, " I don't know what you're talking about." She had been removed from the experience and said there was nothing going on. And Dr. Chambers said to her you didn't seem like yourself." (Id. at 138).

Although B.Y. has no diagnosis, and is resistant to therapy, she would recommend it. She also agreed that B.Y. is "feisty" and pushes back, and "tries to assert what she feels are her rights [*9]and her needs" (Id. at 101). Notably, B.Y. was reticent to do her own therapy because she had been in therapy in the past and found it unhelpful; she also likes the idea of being able to help herself (Id. at 128-29). B.Y. had also been punished by her Mother for saying negative things about her Mother to her therapist (Id. at 130).

She added that what the Mother wants and what B.Y. deserves is for them to both have a real relationship with each other. People do best when they have a good relationship with each of their parents. But, this would "require [the Mother], hopefully sooner rather than later, saying, 'You know something? I may not be able to remember how I acted. I am developing an understanding. It is very hard for me to appreciate how distressing it was to come home into this unpredictable, emotionally volatile environment and I really am working to be stable and not to have this interaction with you and your sister,' you know" (Id. at 91, 95).

Although it was natural to be angry when the children were allowed to leave her home in 2022, there was a concern that the Mother's "anger was one of things that prevented her from being able to look at herself. What her anger facilitated was her looking at everyone else and blaming everyone else" (Id. at 93-94).

If one does not have a relationship with a parent, it can result in depression, anxiety, and impulse control problems. A child's sense of self and self-esteem is directly impacted by their parent's feedback. This is why, according to Dr. Kieserman, an apology from the Mother is so critical because it related to the child's "worth what they feel they deserve, what they feel they should be able to have, how they feel respected and treated, how they should be treated. All of this matters" (Id. at 97-98).

In explaining the issues the children had in the Mother's home, and their desire to leave it, Dr. Kieserman recounted:

[B.Y. and H.Y.] described an environment in their mother's home where they had to spend most of their energy trying to anticipate, defuse and react to their mother's negative mood states. And they both said that this depleted them and frightened them.

[B.Y.] had actually made -- it made [B.Y.] fairly, angry, because they both felt that this was time and energy that they were spending that they could have been spending thinking about themselves, developing things that they wanted to, you know, focusing on activities that they wanted to.

[B.Y.] actually gave some very concrete examples of when she walked into the home and she felt the tone of the home, she knew, immediately, she should talk badly about this person or positively about this person to her mother, because she knew that it would calm her mother down and it was something that her mother would enjoy hearing. And this was a very frequent occurrence.

So, in terms of if -- that's not abuse. It actually -- it's similar to a condition that's been written about called complex trauma. It's a developmental experience that Deutsch and Krauss have written about. It describes an experience with the primary caregiver where the emotional activity is unpredictable and negative and can feel quite aggressive, sometimes controlling, but not always. [H.Y.] didn't have a problem with that, but [B.Y.] really did.

So, in terms of the, you know, the girls being removed from the home one day and losing contact with their mother, there was something that they were gaining from that which was not having this pressure on them, this pressure to constantly be vigilant and actively dealing with what they describe as their mother's mood states. And I have to think that [*10]was a relief for them (Id. at 102-04).

B. Ms. Newman

At the hearing, Ms. Newman explained that the Mother and children were directed to engage in a therapeutic intervention with her (Tr. 9/15/2025 at p. 12). When she began her work, she sent the parties an engagement letter which was promptly signed by the Father but not by the Mother (Id. at 14-15). Instead, the mother questioned her credentials. Nevertheless, Ms. Newman agreed to meet with the Mother. However, the Mother cancelled their meeting and advised she could only meet at odd times like 5:30 in the morning on a Saturday (Id. at 17).

Ms. Newman met with the Father and the children a number of times (Id. at 18-20). The Father and children were engaged and made a good faith effort (Id. at 21-22).

She exchanged multiple emails with the Mother wherein the Mother objected to the process. Some emails were threatening (Id. at 22, 31).^FN3 The Mother did not appear to appreciate that her actions had significantly contributed to the breakdown in the relationship with her daughters (Id. at 23). Instead, she focused on due process and blaming others, and said the children had been stolen from her. Based on the emails and other interactions with the Mother she became concerned that the Mother was emotionally unstable (Id. at 24-25). She also was unaware that the Mother was recording their sessions; she would have canceled the meeting if she knew.

The Mother had asked for a plan and was upset she had not seen her children (Id. at 42-43). Ms. Newman was unable to provide a plan because she could not engage with the Mother (Id. at 54). In her first meeting with the Mother, the Mother berated her and demanded the children be brought to her (Id. at 100-01). She focused on engaging with the children (Id. at 109-10).

The emotional instability made it impossible for the Mother to participate in the intervention and supported the children's fears in communicating with her (Id. at 25). She reported to the Court in October 2022 that the intervention was at a standstill until the Mother could meaningfully engage (Id. at 26).

Ms. Newman explained that forcing the children into more interventions could lead to "emotional distress, anxiety, poor functioning in school and social situations and inside the family" (Id. at 28). It could also turn them off to mental health treatment in general. The children already had a high resistance to seeing their mother (Id. at 107). She recommended the children be in individual therapy.

Ms. Newman agreed this intervention was a complete failure, but denied that she had failed this family (Id. at 48). She also stated that "under the circumstances that depending on the nature of the relationship between the parent and child, the child could be in a better spot of mental health without contact with a parent who is detrimental to their mental health." (Id. at 80).

C. Dr. Ravitz

In Dr. Ravitz's psychiatric evaluation report to the Court, he did not find that the Mother [*11]"suffers from any Axis I psychiatric disorder, nor does she meet criteria for a personality disorder diagnosis" (Court Ex. VII p.24). However, he noted that the Mother "does not need a psychiatric diagnosis to be angry, bitter, and uncooperative. In fact, such feelings are not uncommon, but they are certainly problematic if they remain unresolved. And such feelings often place children in an uncomfortable loyalty bind." (Id. at 22-23). Dr. Ravitz also raised concerns about the Mother's denigration of the Father which is "unequivocally harmful to children" and the Mother's tendency to be rigid and rule bound which frustrated the children (Id. at 23).

Dr. Ravitz also noted that on psychological testing the Mother tended to minimize psychological problems "in an effort to look better than she functionally is on a day-to-day basis." He also found that the Mother "demonstrated little capacity for insight and/or introspection." Instead, she externalized blame for her situation, alleging that the mental health and legal professionals involved in the case were either incompetent or unethical, and her focus on the violation of her constitutional rights struck me as an example of her unwillingness to look at her own behavior (Id. at 23-24). The Mother also had difficulty regulating negative emotions. Dr. Ravitz added that "The bottom line is that she had great difficulty taking responsibility for the current situation with her kids. Given that the children appear to be comfortable in their father's care — i.e. they don't "need" their mother — a reconciliation is unlikely until [the Mother] accepts some responsibility" (Id. at 24).

Dr. Ravitz recommended that the Mother "participate in a course of psychotherapy, the focus of which should be to help her develop some insight into her response to the divorce, and the factors that have prevented her from working productively with PC's, the reconciliation therapist, and any mental health professional who may disagree with, and/or challenge, her beliefs ([the Father] has been willing to work with such professionals.) She needs to understand what she has done to contribute to the current state of affairs rather than simply blaming her ex-husband, the AFC, the judge, or other involved mental health professionals. There will be no progress until she can take some responsibility" (Id. at 24).

At the hearing, Dr. Ravitz testified that a failure on the part of a parent over time to be empathically attuned or sensitive to a child's feelings creates psychological risk for a child, and that a parent's failure to regulate intense, sudden, volatile mood shifts, creates additional risk (Tr. 9/17/2025 at pp. 391, 393). He also opined that the Mother's difficulty with controlling her negative emotions could have led to the children rejecting contact with her (Id. at 394).

Dr. Ravitz discussed how, rather than gaining insight or taking responsibility, the Mother blamed the AFC and the parenting coordinator, and told him that they had brainwashed her daughter (Id. at 398).

Further, as part of his analysis he looked at a prior finding from Dr. Sara Weiss that the Mother had a strong tendency to be rigid and inflexible, and considered that the Mother had an above average level of assertiveness that may veer into domineering and controlling (Id at 404-05). If, at the time of the hearing, the Mother had still not developed insight into her role in the conflict, Dr. Ravitz opined that until she "accepts some responsibility for her contribution, that it's unlikely that the children are going to have enough trust in her to try to build a relationship with her" (Id. at 410).

If, hypothetically B.Y. experienced the Mother dissociate. Dr. Ravitz remarked that "it's going to be upsetting, probably scary and possibly very frustrating, especially since once the dissociative episode passes, the person who experienced the dissociation will likely say I didn't [*12]do anything wrong, I wasn't crazy, I wasn't out of touch with reality, which would be very confusing for the kid (Id. at 411). He added that [u]sually dissociative episodes are associated in some way or another with traumatic experiences in the past and until such time as the person experiencing the dissociative episodes recognizes them and is open to intervention in the midst of dissociation, it's unlikely that it's going to change (Id. at 412).

Assuming that both the therapeutic interventions — with Newman and Dr. Kieserman — failed, and that the Mother was not able or not willing to focus on what she needed to do to repair her relationship with her daughters, Dr. Ravitz opined that until the Mother makes some progress in her individual psychotherapy it's unlikely that reunification treatment will be especially helpful." Similarly, Dr. Ravitz remarked that if the Mother is still blaming the Court, the AFC, and the mental health professionals for the fracture in her relationship with her daughters, it is unlikely intervention will help (Id. at 413-14).

Upon being shown an October 2024 email from the Mother to Dr. Kieserman, Dr. Ravitz found that the mother "sounds on the verge of delusional" when she suggested that the problem was the Father's threats to murder her and how that might have impacted the child. He added that the email demonstrated a person who could not meaningfully participate in intervention (Id. at 416-17). Dr. Ravitz also agreed with Dr. Kieserman's assessment in the email that "forcing a teenager to do what she says that she cannot or is not ready to do is counterproductive to changes that adults would like to see and can backfire in a very negative manner."

In fact, Dr. Ravitz stressed that forcing the child to continue reunification efforts with a parent who cannot meaningfully participate "would induce a feeling of powerlessness that might lead to a kind of profound nihilism" (Id. at 418). In other words, forcing another reunification on the child would be sending a message "ignore everything that you've experienced and instead work with your other parent who tells you or who hints to you that the parent who has successfully cared for you for the last several years is a liar, is abusive, is a possible murderer. It just -- if she's forced to buy into that, she's going to say screw it, nothing means anything, I don't have any power over my life." Ravitz also did not believe that other types of contact, such as phone contact, should be forced on the child unless the Mother changed or gained insight, and that ultimately the child should control whether contact occurs (Id. at 420-21).

Dr. Ravitz also agreed that the Mother's frustration with the long process and lack of contact was normal, and that the letter the Mother sent to B.Y. in August 2024 showed some progress (Id. at 425-26). He also agreed he was not aware of a major event that would explain the rupture in the relationship and that the child' s rejection of the Mother was severe (Id. at 429). He also explained that the longer there is no contact the more likely it is that attitudes will rigidify.

Dr. Ravitz further explained that while court ordered reunification therapy is usually ordered in cases of parental alienation, he saw this case as one of "justified estrangement" and it may not be in the child's best interest to order reunification therapy (Id. at 435-36). He added that "if you force [the child] into treatment with her mother and she sees her mother as rigid, hostile and crazy, she's just going to experience that as abusive." At another point, he described forcing a process without the Mother making progress as "cruel and unusual punishment" (Id. at 459). He suggested that perhaps the Mother write weekly letters to the child, at which point the child can decide "whether or not it seems to her as if her mother is for real" (Id. at 437).

Dr. Ravitz also suggested that the letters be reviewed by a mental health professional who could engage with both the Mother and child (Id. at 441-43). He did not recommend face to [*13]face meetings given the child's fear of the Mother's volatile behavior; he thought the child needed to see the Mother "isn't going to be as emotionally volatile as she's been in the past and it will take her some time to believe that and one of the best ways to do it, I think, would be to limit their contact to written communication" (Id. at 447-48).

Upon further questioning by the AFC, Dr. Ravitz also noted that although the Mother only complained of B.Y.'s oppositional behavior and her being "feisty," both B.Y. and her older sister left together to live with their Father and both resisted contact with their Mother (Id. at 453-54). Dr. Ravitz opined that given the data available to him it "it is perfectly understandable to me that if there is no movement on the part of [the Mother], that the kids would be very reluctant to have ongoing contact with her" (Id. at 456).

D. The Father

The Father testified that he was 60 years old and unemployed after working as an investment banker for 23 years. He is remarried to R.C. and they have been married for nine years. They have two children, a nine year old and a one year old (Tr. 9/15/2025 p. 127-29).

At the time of the hearing, H.Y. was in college and B.Y. was a junior in high school. He moved so that they could live closer to B.Y.'s high school (Id. at 130-31).

He was satisfied with the original parenting agreement. However, the Mother often interfered with his parenting time (Id. at 134-35). In 2019, they entered into the Amended parenting agreement which required a parent coordinator — Judy White - to work on scheduling issues (Id. at 140). Still, there were some instances of interference. Judy White had approved a schedule but the Mother had said her attorney would deal with Judy White (Id. at 147).

In January 2022, when he arrived for his scheduled weekend parenting time the girls weren't answering their phones; neither did the Mother . The Father called his attorney and Judy White for assistance (Id. at 145). The children came downstairs two hours later. The Mother had offered various excuses, including that the children had to see their grandmother, that B.Y.s isn't feeling well, that H.Y. had homework, and that there had been a screw-up (Id. at 153). During the stand-off, the Mother raised issues via text with Judy White not resolving a camp scheduling issue many months earlier (Id. at 156-57).

In an email at 7:16 PM the Mother advised that B.Y. took medicine and is asleep (Id. at 160). He later told the Mother he was angry she was forcing the child to take Benadryl to make her drowsy and compliant.

When the girls came down H.Y. was in tears and B.Y. was angry. H.Y. was extremely distraught and in tears and B.Y. was fuming and visibly very angry (Id. at 163).

After his weekend, the children did not want to return to their Mother (Id. at 165). In 2021, there were other instances he had to convince the children to return to their Mother.

After the Court ordered the children to reside with him, the Father moved from Nyack to Manhattan to reduce travel for the children. At that time, he did a lot of homework with them, went shopping and tried to have fun. After they began living with him H.Y. became more comfortable and B.Y. calmed down, and was less angry (Id. at 168-69).

B.Y. was not very willing to participate with Ms. Newman but the Father insisted on it (Id. at 171-72). The Father thought Ms. Newman was very insightful during his sessions with her. He also thought the sessions with Dr. Kieserman were very productive (Id. at 177). However, it was more difficult to get B.Y. engage with a second professional. Previously, B.Y. had seen her own therapist from 2014 through 2022 (Id. at 179). B.Y. was not in therapy at the time of the hearing. The Father did not think he could convince her to see another therapist (Tr. [*14]9/16/2025 p. 249).

The Father was concerned about the Mother's October 2024 email to Kieserman as it evidenced no progress for the Mother. In addition, he was concerned that the Mother had delusional beliefs that he was a murderer or violent; it was disconnected from reality (Tr. 9/15/2025 pp. 181-82). He noted that over the past 11 years the Mother has accused him of owning weapons when he has none, falsely accused him of being in the Mafia, and falsely accused him of dealing drugs (Id. at 183).^FN4

Since B.Y. has lived with him she has been a lot better, more mature, more grounded; she is thriving, has good friends, and comes to him for advice (Id. at 187). She does many activities, including lacrosse, photography, debate, and has a social life. He and B.Y. work on a rock collection together and got matching earrings. They also watch movies together and talk about books (Id. at 187-88). Historically, the children didn't get along but in the past few years have a good relationship and are confidantes (Id. at 188-89). B.Y. also has a good relationship with his wife and nine year old; she finds the baby annoying.

The Father also considered many schools for B.Y.'s high school and toured many options. He also hired consultants (Id. at 190). He discussed the options with B.Y.; he also kept the Mother informed of where they applied and communicated with the parent coordinator. B.Y. loves going to her current school and is thriving there (Tr. 9/16/2025 p.233).

He noted that the Mother attempted to sabotage her attending the school and attempted to force her to attend another school. In this regard, he recognized emails sent by the Mother to the school, which he was concerned would make the child lose her ability to attend the school (Id. at 236).

Separately, he noted that the Mother bombards B.Y. with texts and calls, and won't allow her to see her pet dogs; the Mother also refused to allow B.Y. to have her prom jewelry (Id. at 238). The police have also come to his home twice to check on the children (Id. at 241-42). After the police visits, the children became furious.

The Mother also showed up unexpectedly to H.Y.'s high school graduation. H.Y. ran off the stage and he saw her crying (Id. at 244-45).

The Mother also unexpectedly came to B.Y.'s eighth grade graduation party and he attempted to avoid her. There was an incident between B.Y. and her mother which he did not observe but pepper spray was sprayed by B.Y.; he did not suggest or encourage B.Y. to use pepper spray on her Mother. (Id. at 246-47).^FN5 The Mother was ordered by the Court not to attend [*15]any of B.Y.'s school functions, which this party was (Id. at 354). The Father understood that multiple people were hit by the spray at the party (Id. at 363). After the incident, he did not see people trying to pull B.Y. off of the Mother or see anyone coughing (Id. at 364). He located B.Y. and exited the room and called the police, accusing the Mother of assaulting B.Y. (Id. at 365).

Still, he would do everything he could to foster a relationship between B.Y. and her mother (Id. at 252).

Between 2014 and 2022, the Father had parenting time on alternate weekends, some dinner visits and time in the summer and holidays (Id. at 260).

Pursuant to the 2019 agreement, neither parent was to disparage the other or estrange the children from the other parent (Id. at 262-63). The Father admitted sending a few angry emails (Id. at 278). But, he denied telling B.Y. her mother is dangerous, ugly and stupid (Id. at 280). He did write the Mother in 2021 saying he "doubt[s] any guy has touched you in 15 years and you just keep getting fatter and fatter" which violated their agreement to be civil (Id. at 286). The Mother had expressed concerns to him that B.Y. was disrespectful to her and other adults (Id. at 289).

He did not comply with the Court's order to provide the Mother with weekly updates on the children or send any photographs. Nor has he sent report cards (Id. at 293, 296). Although he had been providing information to the Mother, she began using it to the detriment of the girls. For example, she contacted high schools and colleges to sabotage the girls' options (Tr. 9/17/2025 pp.519-20).

He also wrote to the Mother that B.Y. is smarter and richer than the Mother and would "shred your mentally ill person to pieces" (Id. at 309-11).

When he filed his motion in 2022, he did not ask the Court to change physical custody (Id. at 328). At that time he was not concerned for the girls' safety; they were doing well in school and had friends and activities (Id. at 334). He did have concerns about the children being negatively affected by the Mother (Id. at 335).

In 2022, he could not get B.Y. to call her mother for Mother's Day (Id. at 329). When the children first came to stay with him, he had them each make brief calls to their Mother (Id. at 337). Yet, they have not had a call with her since July 1, 2022 and had not had a meal with her in over three years (Id. at 339). They also did not visit their maternal grandmother when she was in the hospital. He has been unable to get the children to spend any time with their Mother (Id. at 342).

The Father denied having the Mother's Easter basket investigated by the authorities (Id. at 349). In fact, the children received the Easter baskets (Id. at 350).

In June 2023, B.Y. wanted to know about the welfare of her two dogs (Tr. 9/17/2025 p. 462). The children greatly enjoyed the company of the dogs. B.Y. had not seen the dogs since she moved in with the Father but H.Y. was able to see the dogs through the assistance of the Mother's assistant (Id. at 463). Otherwise, the Mother told him she would not allow the children to see the dogs unless they agreed to see her. Similarly, the Mother would not allow H.Y. to retrieve her necklace unless she visited the Mother (Id. at 464).

Between 2019 and 2022, he did have to discipline the children about their behavior. He [*16]would also receive long emails from the Mother about B.Y.'s behavior (Id. at 469-71). H.Y. stopped having a nervous twitch and picking her eyebrows when she moved to his home and became more confident; B.Y. calmed down and the girls got along better (Id. at 472-73).

After the children came to stay with him, the Father made them call their Mother, gave the Mother their contact information, and tried to arrange dinners with the Mother and her father but that was unsuccessful (Id. at 474). He did not think punishment was appropriate given what he learned from Elysa Newman about the children's experiences with their mother (Id. at 475-76).

The Father also used the parent coordinator in connection with the high school selection process; the Mother, however, enrolled B.Y. in a school without his permission (Id. at 483). When he met with the mother and Dr. Kieserman he provided a full update on B.Y. but the mother was in a weird trance-like state (Id. at 484).

E. The Mother

The Mother explained that she was Catholic and raised her children Catholic (Tr. 9/17/2025 p. 533). She received a Bachelors' degree in nursing in 2024 and works per diem as a registered nurse in various facilities (Id. at 534).

She has lived in her Manhattan apartment since 2017 with her daughters (Id. at 536). Each daughter had her own room. Both girls attended [REDACTED] school (Id. at 541). Prior to entering the custody agreement, she made all major decisions for the children, including selecting doctors, schools, and activities (Id. at 543-44).

During the marriage, the Father had children with other individuals, including A.S.Y., a child who is mentioned in the custody agreement (Id. at 545-46). The birth of this child was traumatic for the Mother and certainly a betrayal (Id. at 547).^FN6

According to the Mother, in 2014 they had a gathering in their home. B.Y. was prone to sleep walking. That night the Mother went to bed and the Father came in later. At some point she searched for the Father, she then came back and saw B.Y. in their bed with the Father in the nude. The Father had been drinking heavily that night. She did not bring B.Y. to the bed and stage a photograph (Id. 549-51).

Regarding the Yankee Stadium incident, the Mother observed the Father having many alcoholic beverages at the game. At some point, the Father began elbowing her which she tried to ignore. The Father also told her she was a horrible person and "in essence, that he was going to kill me or have someone kill me." He then followed her when she tried to relocate her seat (Id. at 552-55). She denied staging a photograph of the Father nude in bed with their daughter the night before. They had discussed getting a lock on their door to keep the children out. The Father was angry that she took the photograph. She was not sure what she reported to the police about the Stadium incident or whether she was assaulted. She also admitted getting served with the divorce papers earlier the day of the game (Tr. 9/26/2025 pp. 663, 666, 669, 674).

The Mother described B.Y. as determined and persistent, athletic and a good kid (Id. at 561). She is naturally gifted and curious and did well academically before 2022 (Id.). The Mother would sometimes help her with school work (Id. at 562). She also participated in horseback riding with her, did girl scout trips, and went skiing and swimming. The Mother also [*17]participated in many school activities. They also enjoyed museums and other cultural events (Id. at 563-66).

She celebrated various holidays with the children, including Easter and Christmas. For Christmas, they would decorate the tree, make cookies or gingerbread houses. On Christmas Day, they would stay in their Upstate home and go skiing. They did other activities upstate in the summer such as golfing. For Easter, they would dye eggs and make baskets. The Mother's now deceased parents would often attend holiday events. She also hosted birthday parties for the children (Id. at 567-72).

The Mother had not seen B.Y. for any holidays or birthdays since March 2022. But, the Mother sent gifts, cards and things to B.Y for holidays and birthdays. She never received any communication from B.Y. about the gifts. The only call she received from B.Y. lasted 10 seconds and took place in March 2022. She did not even hear from her for Mother's Day (Id at 573-77).^FN7

Despite the Court's order, the Mother has not been sent academic or medical records (Id at 580-81).

Between January and March 2022, the Mother did not observe B.Y. appearing anxious or depressed. B.Y. had friends and was not socially withdrawn. She did not have concerns about B.Y. being suicidal (Id. at 587-89). She did, however, have concerns about B.Y. being unkind to others, being rude (Id. at 612-13). When she spoke to B.Y. about her behavior B.Y. said derogatory things. When it continued, the Mother escorted B.Y. over to apologize to someone (Id. at 616-17).

At around that time, the Mother and B.Y. also had disagreements about B.Y. walking around the neighborhood unescorted. Generally, the Mother would escort her to school because of the COVID guidelines; sometimes she allowed B.Y. to go with friends. She also picked her up from school frequently. If she left with friends, the Mother insisted on knowing her location. They also disagreed often about B.Y. wearing "provocative" clothing. There was also a concern about crude, sexual comments on a text chain that B.Y. was part of. The Mother had limitations on cell phone use. The Mother did not believe her decisions were too strict and thought her good, solid parenting had been villainized. She would categorize herself as an authoritative parent (Id. at 618-30).

In response to questions about Dr. Kieserman's reports, the Mother agreed that she was frustrated with the Court process. She believed that there were specific time frames in cases terminating parental rights. She was familiar with CPS/ACS investigations in the past. In those other situations, the investigation/process was limited in time. She was frustrated there was no time frame in this case and claimed that people who had committed felonies are still entitled to contact with their children. The Mother did her own research to reach her conclusions about this process (Id. at 592-98).

The Mother did not know if B.Y. was lying when she told Dr. Kieserman that the Mother was frequently angry with episodes of screaming, facial contortions, facial reddening and clinched teeth. She denied having outbursts as described by B.Y.. She also thought that H.Y.'s description of her mood states as "angry, very angry or furious or, on the other hand, [*18]superficially sweet" was inaccurate. The Mother denied saying anyone would go to hell or that she had furious conversations with herself (Tr. 11/3/2025 pp. 42, 44, 46-47).

The Mother's frustrations with the process affected her participation with Ms. Newman. She claimed that this case was a de facto termination of her rights without due process and without a hearing (Tr. 9/26/2025 pp. 599-600).^FN8 Ms. Newman also never gave her a plan for their process. The Mother wishes she had asked for a written plan at the beginning (Id. at 604). The Mother also told Ms. Newman that she and B.Y. should have communicated directly (Id. at 606). She denied being adversarial with Ms. Newman (Tr. 11/3/2025 p. 61).

The Mother has done her own therapy, including after the 9/11 attacks (Tr. 9/26/2025 p. 607). She resumed therapy in the past few years because of this case. She saw Dr. Oberlander and then Dr. Chambers. At the time of the hearing, she was still in treatment with Dr. Chambers. She has found it helpful (Id. at 609).

Regarding the 8th grade graduation party, the Mother stated that she brought homemade cupcakes and arrived with a friend. An hour after she arrived she briefly saw the Father there. At some point, she heard B.Y.'s voice and the Mother was jostled around. She then saw a man make a strange facial contortion, saw some liquid on another woman, and there was a commotion and pushing. Specifically, B.Y. pushed the Mother in the side and back and was shouting. She had not seen B.Y. before this incident or approached her or bumped her (Id. at 635-40).

The Mother did not know if B.Y. wanted her to come to the party but went anyway. She did not seek out B.Y. or congratulate B.Y. while there (Tr. 11/5/2025 pp. 8-10).

The Mother was aware of Court orders directing her not to be at B.Y.'s school or church when B.Y. was present. She was also prevented from attending a Christmas pageant. But, she believed she was permitted via email to attend H.Y.'s graduation ceremony. She also claimed she was not sure that B.Y. would be at her 8th grade graduation party and claimed it was not a school function. She wanted to be at the party. She had been denied permission to attend the graduation ceremony and then decided she would not miss attending a "private party" Yet, she did not tell the Court, the AFC or the Father she would be attending. She was not aware of a proper restraining order that limited her rights. She thought it was a good decision to go at the time; now she thinks it is a decision she will live with. After the incident, she filed a police report against B.Y. (Tr. 9/26/2025 pp. at 680, 684-86, 689-97). She went to the party because she felt her rights had been limited and she "needed to go on with her life I was entitled to go" (Tr. 11/5/2025 p. 76).

The Mother did not want B.Y. attending her current school but denied sabotaging the application process. She also claimed the parent coordinator did not follow the correct dispute process. Yet, the parent coordinator did issue a recommendation (Tr. 9/26/2025 pp. 703-07).

The Mother admitted that in September 2022 she had her attorneys call the police when she learned from the school that H.Y. was not present in school. She claimed she reached out to the Father before doing so. She wanted the police to take action including going to the Father's home. Her priority was not whether the police would be disruptive to the children (Id. at 724-32).

The Mother has two living sisters; she communicates infrequently with them (Id. at 739, 741). One of her sisters serves as a guardian for their father. At some earlier point the Mother had power of attorney. On March 17, 2025, in another matter in Supreme Court, the Mother was prohibited by court order from giving her own father medicine or representing to anyone that she was his guardian after she removed him from his residential facility in Maryland. She was also prohibited from leaving the facility with her father again. The Mother does not regret removing her father from the facility and not returning him (Id. at 741-42, 747, 750, 753; Pl. Ex. 63). She explained that her father was pleading with her to leave the facility and there was no order saying he had to stay there. The guardianship proceeding began later (Tr. 11/5/2025 pp. 86-88).

At the time of the hearing, the Mother thought the court process was not proper and was a "shadow process." She still believed her good parenting had been "villainized by a cabal of gangsters." The AFC, the parent coordinator, and Ms. Newman are in the "cabal" according to the Mother. She did not know if this jurist is in the cabal (Tr. 11/3/2025 pp.48-51). The Mother did not believe that the children don't want to be exposed to her "angry and erratic, moods and behavior" (Id. at 61). She did not trust what Ms. Newman or the AFC had to say about the children (Id. at 62). She still thought it was possible that B.Y. feared that her Father could murder the Mother or have someone murder her (Id. at 87).

The Mother did not write an apology letter in December 2023 because she had not done anything wrong. She could not recall how the letter she sent to B.Y. in August 2024 was prepared. She may have written it and had others edit it (Id. at 76, 78). At the hearing, the Mother did not know what she was supposed to apologize for (Tr. 11/5/2025 p. 58).

She believed the children left her home because the Father wanted to hurt her (Tr. 11/5/2025 pp. 38-39). Despite the Court order, she emailed the high school to which B.Y. was applying. She did not know what it means not to interfere (Id. at 43).

The Mother was willing to participate in an initial remote meeting with B.Y. She believed it was important for them to have direct interaction and to hear each other out. She is capable of listening to B.Y. and putting aside her anger. She would also be okay with supervised access (Tr. 9/26/2025 pp. 643-52).

DISCUSSION

I. Change In Circumstances

"A custody or visitation order may be modified only upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is in the child's best interests" (Matter of Santiago v Halbal, 88 AD3d 616, 617 [1st Dept 2011]; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]). The first or "controlling 'material fact' is whether or not there is a change in circumstances so as to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by modifying the existing custody arrangement" (Robert OO. v. Sherrell PP., 143 AD3d 1083, 1084 [3d Dept 2016]; see also Sergei P. v. Sofia M., 44 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2007]). Once a change in circumstances has been demonstrated, "the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child's continued best interests" (Matter of Menhennett v Bixby, 132 AD3d 1177, 1179 [3d Dept 2015]; see also Christopher H. v. Taiesha R., 166 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2018]).

Although the parties do not appear to dispute that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances, the Court must first consider this issue. Here, B.Y.'s request that she be permitted to live with her father, the deterioration of her relationship with her mother, and her deep fear of [*19]her mother and desire not to have contact with her mother constitutes a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a review of the custodial arrangements (Freyer v. Macruari, 234 AD3d 755, 757 [2d Dept 2025]).

In addition, pursuant to the parties' Amended Agreement, "future acts of interference by the Mother with the Father's parenting time, if proven, shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of residential custody from the Mother to the Father." At the hearing, the Father's credible testimony that the Mother interfered with his parenting time in January 2022 was unrefuted and was corroborated by other evidence in the record. This constitutes an additional agreed upon basis to find that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.

II. Best Interests and Primary Residential Custody

Since there can be no question that there has been a significant change in circumstances, the Court proceeds to consider whether modification of the prior order is in the child's best interests.

Notably, the parties again do not appear to contest the issue of primary residential/physical custody. But, the Court must consider this issue here.

No one factor is determinative of custody; rather, the Court is required to consider the totality of the circumstances. Among the factors to be considered are the respective ages of the children, the financial circumstances, the home environment of each parent, the parental fitness of each parent, the preferences of the children, the emotional bond between the children and each party, the ability and willingness of each party to facilitate a relationship between the children and the other party, and any goal of keeping siblings together (See Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). When applicable, the Court must also consider the length of time of any prior custodial arrangement and ensure stability for the children. (See Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]).

First, the Court considers the contractual language which, upon a finding of acts of interference by the Mother states that same "shall be deemed a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of residential custody." In other words, given the Mother's history of interfering with the Father's parenting time, the parties agreed that should she do so again residential custody shall be switched to the Father. Such interference occurred in January 2022.

Next, the Court considers the wishes of the child. While "the express wishes of the child are not controlling, they are entitled to great weight, particularly where the child's age and maturity would make her input particularly meaningful" (Melissa C.D. v. Rene I.D., 117 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2014]). In the in camera, and as articulated by the AFC throughout the proceedings, the child has a strong preference to reside with her Father. Given that she is seventeen and mature the Court gives significant weight to this preference.

As best explained by the AFC, and now adopted by the Court, the child's preferences are justified due to the psychologically unsafe environment which existed for years in the Mother's home, including the Mother's terrifying mood swings. This was referred to by Dr. Ravitz as "justified estrangement." The AFC notes:

The home environment with her Mother was untenable and represented serious risks to her mental and emotional development. Her Mother's clear inability to take accountability and instead insist upon conspiracies make clear the Mother remains a risk [*20]to [B.Y.]. [B.Y.'s] history of lived experiences with her Mother has informed her preferences. It is already clear from the Father's testimony that no amount of cajoling, encouragement or insistence, will prompt [B.Y.] to willingly reach out to her Mother. [B.Y.] removed herself from an emotionally unsafe home situation and has made clear her Mother would need to truly take accountability for them to reconnect. [B.Y.] requested an apology letter in June, 2023 and did not receive any letter from her Mother until August, 2024. The evidence at trial illustrates that [B.Y.] did not leave because she was a rebellious Child, as Defendant would have this Court believe. [B.Y.] (and [H.Y.]) left because she could not survive and flourish in her Mother's emotionally volatile home (AFC Sum. p. 27).

Dr. Kieserman further explained that the children described an environment in their mother's home where they had to spend most of their energy trying to anticipate, defuse and react to their mother's negative mood states, which depleted them and frightened them. She noted that this was an experience with the primary caregiver where the emotional activity is unpredictable and negative. As she remarked on the sudden change in residence, "there was something that [the children] were gaining from that which was not having this pressure on them, this pressure to constantly be vigilant and actively dealing with what they describe as their mother's mood states. And I have to think that was a relief for them." This expert opinion makes clear that it is not in the child's best interests to reside with the Mother or be subjected to her mood states, unpredictability or the constant pressure created by the Mother.

The evidence at the hearing also demonstrated that the child was thriving in the Father's care and at his residence. She continued to be successful at school, was engaged in various activities, and even had a closer relationship with her older sister. She was also "a lot better," less angry, "more grounded," has good friends, and comes to the Father for advice. Although the Mother had been the primary parent for most of the child's young life, the Father is the parent most capable of providing the Child with a stable, consistent home environment where the Child's needs are prioritized. Indeed, since the Child began living with the Father, he has made a concerted effort to become empathetically attuned to her needs.

Specifically, the Father considered the child's needs and preferences with regards to her school choice. He moved his residence from Nyack, New York to Brooklyn to facilitate the child's commute and activities. He ensured the child engaged with the mental health professionals involved in this case and promoted those efforts as well as the child having a relationship with her Mother.

In contrast, the Mother attempted to sabotage the child's high school applications by inappropriately emailing the child's preferred school. She also refused to allow the child to visit her pet dogs who remained in the mother's possession. The Mother also held onto her delusional belief that the Father was going to kill her or have someone kill her. She also could not bring herself to write a simple apology letter to begin a dialogue with B.Y. Nor can the Court credit the claim that the letter finally given to the child in August 2024 was actually drafted by the Mother, given the testimony that the language and tone were unlike anything the Mother had ever written, and the Mother's own failure to recall the process of how the letter came into existence.

Given the Court orders in place and the sensitive therapeutic process in place, the Mother also exercised terrible judgment by attending B.Y.'s graduation party, which caused B.Y. to use [*21]pepper spray. In the Mother's words, she was "entitled to go." This was a prime example of the Mother placing her needs to attend the party and be part of the school community over her child's needs for safety and space away from her Mother. The Mother exacerbated her terrible choice by filing a police report against her own daughter. Similarly, she exercised poor judgment when she called the police to the Father's home on two occasions.

The Mother also demonstrated no insight into her sudden and frequent mood changes and how her behavior impacted her children for years. She continues to minimize the importance of the child's emotional and psychological well-being. From the beginning of this litigation, the Mother obsessively focused on her incorrect understanding of the process, her insistence that an inapplicable process which is relevant only to abuse and neglect matters in Family Court should have applied, and thus she both delayed the process and refused to meaningfully engage with it. She also held on to another delusional belief that this litigation was a "shadow process" and that everyone involved was part of a "cabal of gangsters."

She appears to have made no progress in any of the processes ordered by the Court or even in her own individual therapy. She continues to be unable to take any responsibility or accountability for her role in the dynamic and still maintained at the time of the hearing that she had nothing to apologize for. Nor did she truly regret her decision to attend the graduation party, or her concerning removal of her father (who was suffering from dementia) from a care facility which led to a punitive order in a guardianship matter.

Further, although the Father was not flawless and sent some terrible communications to the Mother, he did what he could to encourage B.Y. participating in the interventions and having a relationship with her Mother. On the other hand, the Mother denigrated the Father to the children and in the words of Dr. Ravitz, placed them in a "loyalty bind." This demonstrated that the Mother is incapable of fostering a continued relationship between the Child and the Father.

In sum, the totality of the evidence adduced at trial warrants finding that the child's best interests require a modification of custody, and an order granting the Father sole physical custody where B.Y. is emotionally safe and stable, and thriving.

III. Access

In their summations, the Father and the AFC advocate for no parenting time for the Mother. The Father specifically asks that the Court not direct any further contact or therapeutic interventions. The Mother asks that the Court order that the parties and child engage in the Building Family Resilience Program or another therapeutic intervention. The Mother further requests that "supervised or therapeutic access should be ordered at a minimum."

It is well settled that generally non-custodial parents have a right to visitation with their children, that such visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and children, and that the noncustodial parent plays a valuable role in guiding and loving their children (See Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 [1981]). Yet, where issues of safety and harm to children are raised, as here, the best interests of the children may require no visitation or limited and/or supervised visitation. Indeed, substantial proof that visitation would be harmful to a child will justify denying a visitation request (Matter of Mohammed v Cortland County Dept. of Social Servs., 186 AD2d 908 [3d Dept 1992]; see also Derek G. v. Alice M., 187 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2020][holding that the presumption that visitation is in the best interests of the child is rebuttable, and that proof that visitation would be harmful to the child will justify denying the request]).

Notably, supervised visitation is not considered a deprivation of meaningful access to [*22]children (see Matter of Graham v White, 16 AD3d 583 [2d Dept 2005]; Lightbourne v. Lightbourne, 179 AD2d 562 [1st Dept 1992]).

While the record does not indicate the Mother has been physically abusive toward the child, "supervision is not limited to instances where a court fears for a child's physical safety; rather, the court can also consider whether a parent is having a negative impact on the child's emotional well-being." (Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495, 495 [1st Dept 2007]).

Moreover, while generally cases of severe estrangement between parent and child may warrant therapeutic access, such access may not be appropriate where there is record evidence that continued therapeutic access would be harmful to the child's well-being (see Freyer v. Macruari, 234 AD3d at 758). Courts may also properly suspend parental access entirely where there is evidence that it is in the child's best interests to suspend parental access (see Mazo v. Volpert, 223 AD3d 907, 908 [2d Dept 2024]).

Any discussion of what parental access is appropriate here must acknowledge some basic points. First, no party is suggesting any sort of unsupervised or unguided contact. Second, throughout these proceedings, the Court has ordered two therapeutic interventions which were not successful. Third, the Court's orders have permitted and directed that the Mother have liberal phone and video call access with B.Y.. In fact, that directive was never vacated and remains in place to date. However, with little exception, such contact has not been reciprocated by B.Y. Nor has it helped to move the relationship forward. Fourth, it is critical to note that B.Y. will turn eighteen in a handful of months.

The final point to consider is whether any order the Court issues now will be successfully followed. Based on the evidence, it is fanciful to believe that any directives issued throughout the case or now could change B.Y.'s justified feelings about her Mother, or that the relationship would be any different without the Mother taking accountability and engaging in years of therapy.

The Mother looks to various testimony in the record that supports the idea that B.Y. should have a relationship with her Mother, that contact between them is critical, and that delay has been the enemy. The Mother relies on portions of Dr. Kieserman's testimony in which she talked about the benefits to B.Y. if she were able to forgive her mother and have a good relationship with her, and the risks to B.Y. if they don't have a good relationship. The Mother also notes that she agreed to participate in a new therapeutic process.

The Mother entirely ignores the critical evidence and expert testimony that weighs strongly against ordering a therapeutic intervention. Specifically, Dr. Ravitz opined that forcing B.Y. to do what she says she cannot or is not ready to do is counterproductive and could induce a feeling of powerlessness that might lead to a kind of "profound nihilism," and that if the Court were to order yet another therapeutic intervention, it will make it less likely that B.Y. will ever reconcile with the Mother. Dr. Ravitz stressed that forcing another intervention would be a "disaster" and a form of "cruel and unusual punishment." He also noted that a reconciliation is unlikely until the Mother "accepts some responsibility" and works in psychotherapy to gain insight since "[t]here will be no progress until she can take some responsibility." Dr. Ravitz also remarked that if the Mother is still blaming the Court, the AFC, and the mental health professionals for the fracture in her relationship with her daughters, it is unlikely intervention will help.

Similarly, Ms. Newman explained that forcing the children into more interventions could lead to "emotional distress, anxiety, poor functioning in school and social situations and inside [*23]the family" and could turn them off to mental health treatment in general. She also stated that B.Y. is better off not having the Mother in her life at this time and that B.Y. will not suffer any negative effects from it.

Moreover, Dr. Kieserman described a hypothetical process, and not an actual proposal. In fact, she had concerns about whether the Mother could meaningfully participate in another intervention or be sensitive to the child's timeline, and whether the Mother would remain in consistent treatment with Dr. Chambers. Dr. Kieserman agreed with Dr. Ravitz's opinion that the Mother had to recognize and take responsibility for her contribution to the problem in order for there to be a reconciliation. In June 2024, Dr. Kieserman reported to the Court that the best path was to give the Mother time she needs in her own treatment.

Dr. Kieserman also noted that the Mother's own psychiatrist - Dr. Chambers - did not think the Mother was ready to meet with B.Y., and Dr. Kieserman conceded the Mother never showed an ability to work cooperatively in the past. Dr. Kieserman also explained the critical importance of a genuine apology to B.Y.'s self worth, and as a necessary step to move forward. Yet, the Mother was unable to write such an apology, and at the time of trial still thought she had nothing to apologize for.

In addition, it is clear that B.Y. does not want to participate in another therapeutic intervention, and this position should be given significant consideration. She seriously engaged with two interventions already while her Mother undermined and challenged the interventions at every turn, and never put in the therapeutic work necessary to make progress. The Father's testimony was clear that he did not think he could convince B.Y. to engage with yet another professional.

Even if there were some support in the record for this Court to order another intervention, the Mother has failed to make any progress, failed to gain any insight of any kind, still believes the children were brainwashed and "taken" from her, believes this process was coordinated by a "cabal of gangsters," holds on to the delusion that the Father is seeking to have her murdered, has no regrets about any of her terrible decisions — including violating Court orders and attending a graduation event because she felt "entitled" to go, and removing her Father from his care facility - and has not sufficiently worked on her own anger, or mental health concerns, including her mood swings and dissociative episodes.

Indeed, at the hearing and in her written summation the Mother continues to cast blame all around and avoid responsibility. She continues to question the litigation process including the March 9, 2022 order that temporarily permitted B.Y. to reside with the Father, the utilization of Ms. Newman, and the fact a hearing did not place earlier.^FN9 She complains that court orders were [*24]not followed by B.Y., and contends that her legal rights were violated. She also focuses on the Father's inappropriate texts to her and claims he alienated the child. These complaints demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of the relevant legal process, ignore her own acts of alienation and interference, demand unrealistic results given her damaged relationship with B.Y., and do not account for her failure to cooperate and engage with the process, or her sabotaging any chance of reconciliation or positive movement by attacking professionals and exercising terrible judgment. Even were there merit to her complaints, they miss the crux of the matter.

More significantly, at no time has the Mother demonstrated introspection, remorse, humility, or any ability to be receptive to the expertise of others. She appears unable to grasp the severity of her mental health issues and the impact they had on her children for years, and it is thus not appropriate to force the child to engage in further therapeutic intervention. The Mother also refuses to recognize that most of the delay in this case and failure in reconciliation was caused by her actions, her refusal to engage with professionals, her refusal to confront her mental health, her refusal to write a simple apology letter, and her refusal to exercise love and patience rather than entitlement.

Nor can the Court credit the Mother's self-serving testimony that she would engage with a new therapeutic process, or that she has gained insight, or genuinely feels remorse for her role in the deterioration of the relationship with B.Y.

In sum, the overwhelming evidence in the record compels a determination that forcing B.Y. to engage in another intervention is not in her best interests, and the Court will not do so.

This still leaves open the question of whether some form of contact would be appropriate here. The Mother claims that "even where a parent has committed unspeakable acts against the child and/or the former spouse or is a legitimate danger to the children visitation is also preferred to a complete termination of access." Yet, the cases cited by the Mother in support of her position involved children much younger and less mature than 17-year-old B.Y. (See e.g., James P.W. v. Eileen M.W., 136 AD2d 549 [1st Dept 1988][infant]; Nicole J. v. Joshua J., 206 AD3d 1186 [3d Dept. 2022] [4-year-old child]; Anonymous G. v. Anonymous G., 517 NYS2d 986 [1st Dept 1987][7-year-old and 9-year-old children]; A.U.G. v. J.G., 300 AD2d 205 [1st Dept 2002] [infant]). Nor do many of the cases cited by the Mother involve a parent who continues to pose an emotional and psychological danger and risk to the child, or one who was also unable to cooperate with professionals, follow court orders, gain insight, or meaningfully [*25]engage in therapeutic interventions. Regardless, each case must be considered on its own unique facts.

Here, the only contact truly supported by record evidence is found in Dr. Ravitz's testimony. When questioned about what contact would be appropriate, Dr. Ravitz recommended that the Mother write weekly letters to the child, at which point the child can decide "whether or not it seems to her as if her mother is for real." He suggested that the letters be reviewed by a mental health professional who could engage with both the Mother and child, and he specifically did not recommend face to face meetings given the child's fear of the Mother's volatile behavior.

The Court has concerns that terminating all access would only add to the pain B.Y. must feel, and would close the door on any possible reconciliation or relationship. There is evidence in the record that a complete termination of access poses risks for the child. It is thus the determination of this Court that based on the evidence and circumstances in this case it is appropriate for the Mother to have weekly letter access with B.Y. through Comprehensive Family Services to be paid for by the Mother (see Matter of Arcenia K. v Lamiek C., 144 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2016]). Such supervised letters should be reviewed by an appropriate mental health professional and screened for appropriateness. In addition, the parties may agree to expand/modify the access to include bi-weekly supervised phone or video calls on consent of all parties.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

DATE 5/28/2026

ARIEL D. CHESLER, J.S.C.