Family Court, Albany County

Decided on June 9, 2026

File No. 48077

Jessica R. Wilcox, J.

[*1]

Petitioner father and respondent mother, who were divorced by Judgment dated May 18, 2022, are the parents of one child, born in 2018. Prior to the parties' divorce, an initial "Order of Custody and Parenting Time" (2019 Custody Order) was issued by the Rensselaer County Family Court on October 11, 2019 (Walsh, J.), which provided that the parties share joint legal and physical custody of the child and provided for a detailed schedule of parenting time. In 2020, petitioner filed a petition in Rensselaer County Family Court seeking to modify the initial [*2]2019 custody determination.^FN1 Prior to trial, the parties stipulated to the issuance of a final "Order of Custody and Parenting Time" (2022 final Order) issued March 3, 2022, and dated May 13, 2022 (Kehn, J.). In conjunction with the matrimonial proceeding, the Court held a trial on the issues of child support, equitable distribution, attorney's fees, and contempt (see A.B. v C.B., Index No 2019-262545, Rensselaer County Sup Ct, McGrath, J. [March 30, 2022]).^FN2 As a result of that matrimonial trial, the Court found that that respondent was the victim of domestic violence. Specifically, the Court found that petitioner struck respondent across the face, threatened to put a bullet through her head, pushed her against a wall, and put his hands around her neck (see Respondent's Exhibit DDDD).

The Judgment of Divorce incorporated, but did not merge, the 2022 final Order, through which the parties continue to share joint legal custody of the child. That 2022 final Order also addressed, among other things, petitioner's parenting time, providing that petitioner

"shall continue to have parenting time with the subject child Wednesdays after preschool, childcare, or school or 5:00 p.m.[,] as the case may be until Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. or the beginning of pre-school, childcare or school as the case may be. . . [and] parenting time with the subject child every other Friday after pre-school, childcare, school or 5:00 p.m. as the case may be, until Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. or the beginning of pre-school, school or childcare as the case may be"

(2022 final Order; see Petitioner's Exhibit 101; Court Exhibit A).

The 2022 final Order also set forth detailed summer vacation and holiday schedules, which superseded the regular parenting schedules and, for any overnight periods away from a parent's residence outside summer vacation time, the 2022 final Order provided that the other party is entitled to 48-hours' notice and a travel itinerary. The 2022 final Order included that each party "shall be allowed to speak with and/or have access to all records of the child's medical [*3]and educational providers," that neither party "shall discuss any adult or court topics in the presence of the child nor shall they allow any third parties to do so," and that "the parties shall positively encourage the child as it pertains to his relationship with the other parent by their words and actions and ensure third party compliance in this regard."

Notably, the 2022 final Order provided that

"except as it pertains to effectuating the provisions of this Order, [A.B.] shall stay away from [S.C.], the home of [S.C.], the place of employment of [S.C.], refrain from communication or any other contact by mail, telephone, e-mail, voice-mail or other electronic or any other means with [S.C.] except for purposes of this Order, and no contact direct or indirect whatsoever, except per terms of the Order of Custody. [A.B.] shall refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, strangulation, criminal obstruction of breathing or circulation, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, forcible touching, intimidation, threats, identity theft, grand larceny, coercion or any criminal offense [against] [S.C.]"

(2022 final Order [emphasis added]).

Finally, the 2022 finally Order attached a Standard Conditions of Parental Behavior which, as is relevant to this proceeding, advised that

1. CIVIL TREATMENT: All conversations, interactions and dealings of any sort between the parents shall be conducted in a civil and courteous manner.

2. DISCUSSION WITH CHILD: Neither parent shall discuss the legal aspects of this case or other adult issues with or in front of the child or permit third persons to do so.

3. NO DISPARAGEMENT: Neither parent shall disparage the other parent or other members of that parent's family or household to or in front of the child or permit third persons to do so. The child shall not be encouraged or permitted to call non-parents "mother, father" or their equivalents. . . .

5. PROMPT NOTICE: Each parent shall promptly and fully disclose to the other parent any event which significantly affects a child's health, education, behavior or general

6. APPOINTMENTS: Each parent shall give the other timely notice of the child's medical appointments, school events, parent-teacher meetings, counseling sessions or the like.

7. RECORDS: Each parent, regardless of custodial status, is authorized to access all of the child's educational, medical, or psychological records or any other record or notice that is available to the custodial parent. This includes the right to speak with and obtain information from teachers, counselors and medical providers. The parent with the originals of the child's birth certificate, social security card and health insurance card shall provide the other parent with copies of those documents. . . .

10. SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES: Each parent exercising custodial or parenting time shall be responsible for ensuring the attendance of the child's timely at scheduled organized activities such as music or dance lessons, soccer or baseball practice or games or regularly attended religious services. Neither parent shall enroll the child in any new organized activities of this type, or commit the child to other activities such as sleep-overs or birthday parties, that will take place during the other parent's custodial or [*4]parenting time without the prior consent of the affected parent.

In 2023, petitioner filed a petition in Albany County Family Court seeking to modify the 2022 final Order, together with a petition seeking to enforce the 2022 final Order. In 2024, petitioner filed an additional petition to enforce the 2022 final Order. In 2024, petitioner filed another petition seeking to modify the 2022 final Order. Both the enforcement petitions were dismissed by Decision and Order dated July 31, 2024 (Kushner, J.). And, with respect to the petition for modification, the Court found that petitioner's allegations that

"[r]espondent unilaterally enrolled the child in school, that the parties were unable to agree on vacations scheduling, that Respondent disparages [p]etitioner to her son and others, and that [r]espondent harasses [p]etitioner by proxy, if proven, may establish a change of circumstances. If proven, these facts would demonstrate that joint legal custody is no longer feasible and that the best interests of the child require it be changed"

Decision and Order dated July 31, 2024).^FN3

In November 2024, petitioner filed an amended petition seeking a modification of the 2022 final Order. The amended petition alleges that, since entry of the 2022 final Order, there has been a change in circumstances in that

a. Respondent consistently demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to coparent.

b. Respondent affirmatively interferes and/or obstructs with Petitioner's coparenting.

c. Simply stated, Respondent has weaponized the orders and uses them to exert power and control over Petitioner and his time with the child. I understand that this is the very definition of domestic violence.

d. Respondent has a history of disregarding orders of the court. By way of disclosure, there is currently a contempt proceeding pending against her in the Supreme Court relative to the Judgment of Divorce; a custody violation petition has been filed contemporaneously with this present petition[.]

e. Respondent unilaterally registered the child in a school district other than the district in which the parties had previously agreed the child would attend (Bethlehem as opposed to North Greenbush[)].

f. In fact[,] she failed to notify Petitioner of her intention to register child in the Bethlehem schools[.] Petitioner only learned of the registration when on May 11, 2023 [ ] the Respondent casually advised the child's dentist that he would be attending Bethlehem schools.

g. It is in the child's best interest to be enrolled at the Belltop School in North Greenbush as the parties had previously agreed. Petitioner lives less than a 3 minute walk from the Belltop School and is available to provide after school care rather than relegate him to an afterschool program[.] By Respondent works 40 minutes away from the Bethlehem school and is less available to retrieve the child case of emergency. Respondent intends to leave the child in after school care with strangers rather than in the care of Petitioner[.]

h. Respondent continues to disparage Petitioner to the child and to others.[ ] By way of example[,] she routinely tells my son that I am unreliable; Respondent also lied to our son and told him that I would not allow him to go on the vacation she unilaterally [*5]scheduled (which is untrue)[.]

i. As another example, earlier this summer, Respondent told their son's T-ball coach that there was an order of protection against me resulting in the coach preventing me from participating with the T-ball training unless I obtained a full background check, something not required of other parents. There is no such order of protection preventing his [sic] participation in my son[']s sporting activities.

j. Further, Respondent continues to harass Petitioner by proxy[.] Respondent has engaged the services of the members of her Gurdwara (Sikh temple) to call and harass Respondent, Respondent's parents and Respondent's extended relatives [sic], attempting to bully Respondent [sic] into relinquishing parental rights. This is part of a pattern of behavior extending back to 2021 when Petitioner requested in writing that Respondent cease and desist from all contact with family members, such request having been reiterated on July 4, 2023 by Petitioner to Respondent. Most recently, Respondent's [sic] uncle received one of these harassing calls on July 30, 2023 and Respondent's [sic] father received on July 17, 2023[.]

k. Respondent schedules vacations and trips in a manner so as to prevent Petitioner from seeing his child for weeks at a time rather than making adjustments to the schedule to accommodate the travels and the loss of parenting time.

l. Respondent has told Petitioner repeatedly that she has the final say on all vacations scheduling and that she need not even give reasonable notice when she seeks to make vacation.

m. As Petitioner writes this Petition, Respondent is engaged in obstructing Petitioner's scheduled vacation with the child and has advised that she will not release the child for the scheduled vacation of August 20 through September 3rd (noticed 7/11/2023 per order) as he [sic] has announced her intention to take a third vacation of the year with the child during that time, where Petitioner has not been afforded even a first vacation with the child.

n. She holds the child captive until 5pm on parenting time visits contrary to the intent of the provision, a provision[s] intended to accommodate the child's schooling and intended to apply only on school dates.

o. Upon information and belief, Respondent continues to discuss adult and legal matters with the child in violation of the order.

p. Respondent continues to fail to co-parent including holding birthday party for the subject child on November 16, 2024 at Apex Crossgates, first actively concealing it from Petitioner and in the end, failing to inform Petitioner of party. Two years ago, Petitioner had organized the birthday party for the child at Chuck E Cheese and made sure to include Respondent in the celebration[.]

q. Respondent has unilaterally enrolled their son in intramural soccer at the Bethlehem Soccer Plex but refuses to share the game schedule with Petitioner including the schedule for October of 2024. Petitioner missed the entire season. Petitioner first learned of the enrollment on the soccer team when the parties' son asked me why Petitioner hadn't attended any of his games-such inquiry coming after the end of the season.

r. Respondent continues to be abusive in her communications with Petitioner, including but not limited to misrepresenting facts and occurrences to meet her self serving narratives and create documentation of false allegations of misconduct by Petitioner. By [*6]way of example, she falsely accused Petitioner in writing of sending the child to school with a weapon on October 31, 2024 continuing that Petitioner should not send the child to school with weapons, falsely insinuating that he had done so

(Amended Petition, dated November 15, 2024).

A fact-finding hearing took place over the course of four days, commencing on October 10, 2025, continuing December 19, 2025, and March 11, 2026, and completing on March 12, 2026. Each party offered their own testimony. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3, 5-16, 18-24, 26-29, 31-35, 37-38, 39-41, 44-65, 74, and 101 were entered into evidence. Respondent's Exhibits A-B, E-I, M-WW, YY-ZZ, EEE-III, LLL-MMM, OOO-RRR, TTT-AAAA, and CCCC-EEEE were entered into evidence. The Court took judicial notice of the 2022 final Order (see Court Exhibit A), and the Albany County Family Court Decision and Order dated July 31, 2024 (Kushner, J.) (see Court Exhibit B). Post-trial submissions were received by the Court on May 22, 2026.

FACT FINDING HEARING

Petitioner's Testimony and Evidence

Petitioner testified that, generally, he wants to be a bigger part of the child's life, wants to enjoy equal time with the child, and would like to be included in making decisions, jointly with respondent, regarding the child's upbringing.^FN4 Petitioner testified that he would like to share joint legal custody of the child, with the parties sharing physical custody of the child equally - perhaps adding a Thursday overnight or alternating weeks. Petitioner also would like to have parenting time when school is out on days he is scheduled to have parenting time. Finally, petitioner would like to eliminate any protective order language from a custody order so that he can attend events with the child during respondent's parenting time.

As for the current schedule, petitioner testified that there have been issues with co-parenting, appointment scheduling, vacation time, and decision-making regarding the child and that respondent has wrongfully prevented petitioner from accessing the child's milestone mementos. Petitioner also testified that respondent continues to falsely assert that there exists an order of protection in her favor, and that respondent has been improperly having adult conversations with the child, coaching the child, and disparaging petitioner to others.

As evidence of co-parenting failures, petitioner testified that, in 2023, respondent enrolled the child in the Bethlehem Central School District without his knowledge or consent. Petitioner testified that, generally, he is not consulted when respondent schedules the child's medical, dental, and school-related appointments, and that respondent has taken the liberty of scheduling the child's appointments on dates and at times that he was unavailable, notwithstanding that petitioner has provided respondent with alternative dates and times that suit petitioner's schedule. For the child's last dental appointment, for example, petitioner made a request that the follow-up appointment be scheduled in the early morning so that petitioner could [*7]attend. However, respondent is alleged to have refused petitioner's request, and the appointment was scheduled in the afternoon - after the school day ended — and petitioner was unable to attend.

With respect to the child's extracurricular activities, including T-ball, soccer, Ninja Lab, gymnastics, and lacrosse, petitioner testified that respondent unilaterally scheduled the child for activities and, when she registers the child for activities, she selectively informs petitioner of the child's schedule. While petitioner was informed of the child's participation in T-ball and soccer, he was not informed of the child's participation in lacrosse, Ninja Lab, and gymnastics. Petitioner also alleges that respondent failed to provide respondent with access to game and practice schedules. With respect to summer camp, petitioner testified that respondent enrolled the child in a camp which the child didn't enjoy, and that this past summer, the child was enrolled in a summer camp without petitioner's input. According to petitioner, the parent having parenting time would generally take the child to school-related birthday parties. Petitioner alleges that respondent has failed to advise him that the child had been invited to a classmate's birthday party and, on one occasion, respondent lied to petitioner — telling him that the child was scheduled to go to a non-school related birthday party so that she could take the child to the party during his parenting time.

Petitioner testified that respondent scheduled a birthday party for the child last year at the local mall, but that respondent did not invite petitioner (see Petitioner's Exhibit 55). Petitioner felt as though this prevented him from throwing an additional birthday party for the child, as it would be embarrassing for the family. In contrast, the year before, petitioner arranged for the child's birthday at Chuck E. Cheese and invited respondent. As another example of respondent's failure to effectively co-parent, petitioner testified that respondent failed to advise him that she volunteered the child to read at CAPER — a May 2025 school evening reading event. Petitioner testified that he only found out about the child's participation from an email sent to petitioner from the school on the date of the event reminding the school community about the event and naming the child as a guest reader (see Petitioner's Exhibit 51 and 52). Petitioner was able to move his schedule around and attend the reading event.

Petitioner testified that during the summers between 2022 and 2025, respondent took the child on vacation during petitioner's custodial weekends. According to petitioner, this resulted in petitioner being precluded from seeing the child for upwards of 14 days. In 2025, for example, petitioner testified that respondent's vacations resulted in her having the child for nine weekends during the summer recess. With respect to respondent's overnight trips with the child, on one occasion during July of 2022, respondent left New York State and went to Massachusetts with the child but did not notify petitioner as required by the 2022 final Order until 7:00 a.m., after she had arrived at the destination (see Petitioner's Exhibit 31). Petitioner testified that respondent has objected to petitioner taking trips with the child because the child will miss school, but that she, herself, has taken trips with the child that have resulted in the child missing school. In 2023, petitioner advised that he intended on taking the child to Disney in October, which would result in the child missing one week of school. Respondent objected and petitioner sought and was granted permission from the Court to take the child to Disney for a limited period of time so the child would not miss a whole week of school. Respondent is then alleged to have taken the child out of school to take a similar trip during her custodial time that resulted in the child missing some school. In 2024, respondent took the child to Myrtle Beach, Virgina, but never advised petitioner of this trip.

As evidence of the parties' general inability to co-parent, petitioner testified that the child [*8]lost a tooth at petitioner's house and that respondent, through the child, retrieved the tooth from petitioner's home that same day so the tooth fairy could visit the child during respondent's parenting time that evening. Petitioner testified that he repeatedly requested that respondent return the tooth so that it could be placed in a baby book, but respondent refused to do so.^FN5 Petitioner alleges that respondent also refused to permit petitioner to take a different tooth that was extracted at a later dentist appointment. Petitioner alleges that respondent absconded with the child's kindergarten grade diploma at the school after ripping the diploma from his possession. Finally, petitioner testified that he is not permitted access to artwork and other items that are created by the child at school.

Petitioner also made a number of complaints including that 1) he is not permitted parenting time with the child before 5:00 p.m. on days that the child does not have school and that he should be permitted more parenting time with the child on non-school days that occur on his parenting days; 2) he has not been notified of the child's invitations to friends' birthday parties; 3) he has been precluded from attending the child's extracurricular activities and not consulted in his registration in those activities; 4) respondent falsely accused him of sending the child to school in clothes that were too small (see Petitioner's Exhibit 56),^FN6 and accused petitioner of purchasing generic, off-brand sneakers for the child; 5) respondent absconded with the child's kindergarten grade diploma at the school after the graduation ceremony and ripped the diploma from his possession; and 6) he is not permitted access to artwork and other items that are created by the child at school; 7) respondent falsely accused petitioner of not providing the child with healthy food for lunch and purchased sub-quality ramen for the child; and 8) the child is aware of adult conversations that have occurred between the parties.

Petitioner testified that since the issuance of the 2022 final Order, respondent has maligned him by advising individuals, including friends, religious leaders, the child's coaches, and law enforcement that there was order of protection issued against him in respondent's favor when, in fact, no such order exists. Petitioner testified with respect to respondent's Exhibit M — a 2023 e-mail exchange between respondent and the child's T-ball coach - generated after petitioner requested the full schedule of the child's T-ball games, and after petitioner expressed an interest in coaching the team. In Exhibit M, which was stipulated into evidence, respondent advised the coach:

"I overheard [petitioner] asking you for the app/schedule etc- I have only provided him with the games that fall on his scheduled custody time so he can bring [the child] but I did not give him the entire schedule of all the games (i.e. the ones that fall on my parenting time). There is a long history of domestic violence — I am attaching our custody order which has a 'refrain from' clause and limits [petitioner's] contact with me [*9](page5). I would prefer if he did not have this information as he makes me very uncomfortable and on the way back, he made it clear he would show up to games that fall on my parenting time once he had the entire schedule. I was trying to do the right thing for [the child] and shared the days that fall on his time so [the child] would not have to miss any games and could consistently attend. I am sorry to drag you into this mess but if there is any way not to share this information with him, I would greatly appreciate it"

(Respondent's Exhibit M).

To establish that respondent could not have been and cannot be afraid of him, petitioner testified that on a number of occasions, respondent contacted him because she was stranded on the side of the road because of vehicle trouble. Petitioner helped her replace her tire on two occasions and provided her and the child with transportation. Respondent called him on another occasion when she got into an automobile accident. In addition, petitioner has come to respondent's house to help her with the child when the child was ill. During those interactions, petitioner testified that he did not observe any evidence that respondent was afraid of him.^FN7

On cross-examination, petitioner conceded that in July 2022 - on the date respondent went to Massachusetts with the child - respondent advised him via text that she had taken the child to Massachusetts, and that he didn't respond to her text message or voice any objection to the travel. Petitioner also conceded that he has access to both the child's school and medical records. However, petitioner testified that he would not necessarily have notice of any activities that respondent volunteered the child to participate in without his knowledge. With respect to parenting time, petitioner also conceded that the 2022 final Order states that his Wednesday parenting time starts at 5:00 p.m., even when there is no school. However, petitioner criticized respondent, contending that she rarely permits petitioner to start his parenting time before 5:00 p.m. on non-school days.

With respect to respondent's alleged disclosure of the existence of an order of protection, petitioner conceded that respondent's Exhibit M refers to a custody order and that the 2022 final Order includes language requiring, among other things, that petitioner stay away from respondent and her home and prohibits petitioner from communicating with respondent except for communication with respect to the child. Petitioner also conceded that he was not precluded from attending T-ball games, but rather he felt embarrassed because of the disclosure of the [*10]language set forth in the custody order.^FN8 Petitioner could not identify any entity that precluded him from attending the child's activities because of the protective language set forth in the 2022 final Order.

With respect to summer camp, petitioner acknowledged that in March 2024, respondent corresponded with petitioner regarding registering the child. Respondent expressly advised that the child "does not need necessarily to go here if you have another camp in mind" (Respondent's Exhibit P). Petitioner made no objections at that time. In July 2024, at camp drop off, petitioner became aware that camp fees had not been paid. Petitioner then communicated to respondent that "[m]oving forward, this is to inform you permanently that unless the activities he is enrolled in are covered by child support I do not want him enrolled" (Respondent's Exhibit Q).

With respect to vacation time, petitioner alleges that respondent improperly took her vacation time during petitioner's custodial parenting time.^FN9 However, petitioner was also able to take his own vacations with the child. Finally, Petitioner testified that he believes that respondent is required to invite petitioner to any birthday parties or events that she plans for the child. Petitioner testified that he has invited respondent to attend the child's swim lessons, and that respondent called him on a number of occasions requesting help because of car problems. Finally, petitioner testified that respondent unilaterally pulls the child out of school without his knowledge or consent.

Respondent's Testimony and Evidence

Respondent testified regarding her attempts to co-parent and communicate with petitioner in compliance with the 2022 final Order. In addition to her testimony, respondent presented, among other things, text and e-mail exchanges between the parties spanning between 2022 and 2025.

As background, the child attended daycare at Bright Horizons beginning in April 2022, then attended Bethlehem Central School District for kindergarten after respondent moved to Glenmont in 2023.^FN10 Respondent testified that petitioner was aware of her intent to reside in Glenmont by virtue of the prior proceedings between the parties. The child is presently in 2nd grade and attends Glenmont Elementary school, where he has been enrolled since September 2023. The child's school day starts at 9:15 a.m. and concludes at 3:15 p.m. Respondent works as [*11]an infusion pharmacist and has adjusted her work schedule so that her workday ends at 3:15 p.m. on her parenting days.

Prior to the child's enrollment in elementary school, petitioner wanted the child to attend Albany Academy, a private school. Respondent objected to that option as cost prohibitive. Respondent testified that, as with the costs for attending Bright Horizons preschool, petitioner expected that respondent would pay more in tuition costs. When enrolling the child in Glenmont Elementary, respondent conceded that she e-mailed petitioner on June 29, 2023 stating that:

"I consulted with a lawyer and was advised that I have primary custody, his school enrollment will default to [Bethlehem Central School District]. With this information, [the child] has been enrolled for Kindergarten in Bethlehem Central School District and has a confirmed spot at Glenmont Elementary this fall. Please note we will need to give Bright Horizons a 30 day notice of his last day in August. It appears the school's aftercare is full but I will be submitting an application to waitlist him for aftercare. I don't think he will need before care with our schedules, but please let me know if my assumption [is] incorrect"

(Respondent's, Exhibit F).

In response, petitioner advised that respondent "does NOT get to make major Unilateral decisions for our son[] . . .If common sense was used he wouldn't need aftercare either as you work roughly 40 mins from his school and I will be at least 25-30 and he could have been home after school like the rest of the kids where he would have been 5 mins walk from school and close if it was an emergency as I work from home" (id.). Respondent denied withholding information from petitioner regarding the child's enrollment in school and testified that enrollment for kindergarten opened in February 2023, and that conversations between the parties were ongoing. Respondent testified that, as with many issues regarding the child, petitioner routinely objected to all of respondent's suggestions and demanded that the child attend Albany Academy, thus leading to a standstill. Based on that she had primary physical custody of the child and, based on that time for enrollment was running out, respondent believed she had the authority to enroll the child in Glenmont Elementary.

Respondent has routinely provided petitioner with educational updates, pictures of awards, updates regarding the child's monumental events, and the child's school related communications. Report cards from the child's school portal from 2023-2025, which are available to both parties in the district's parent portal, show that the child is performing remarkably well (see Respondent's Exhibit H). Commencing in September 2023, respondent also prepared and provided petitioner with monthly calendars outlining the parties' parenting schedule so that petitioner could review, correct errors, and suggest changes (see Respondent's Exhibit I). These calendars were submitted to the school by respondent only after receipt of petitioner's approval.

Respondent testified regarding the provisions in the 2022 final Order that provide, among other things, that petitioner stay away from respondent and her home. This protective language was carried over from the initial "Order of Custody and Parenting Time" issued by the Rensselaer County Family Court on October 11, 2019 (Walsh, J.) and was based on allegations that respondent was the victim of physical and mental abuse, evidence of which was introduced as part of the divorce proceeding. Specifically, after a matrimonial trial, by Decision and Order [*12]dated March 30, 2022, the Rensselaer County Supreme Court (McGrath, J.) found, among other things, that petitioner struck respondent across the face on two occasions, pushed her against the wall, threatened to put a bullet in her head, and put his hands around her neck (see Respondent's Exhibit DDDD). Respondent testified that, notwithstanding the protective language set forth in the 2019 and 2022 orders, petitioner continues to intimidate and disparage her at custody exchanges in front of the child, yelling at her and calling her names such as "deadbeat," "leach," and "scumbag." When respondent attempts to address petitioner's behavior, he will call her "psychotic" and accuse her of "making it up." Respondent testified that petitioner continues to act in an intimidating manner in her presence, and has threatened to go to law enforcement and allege abduction when respondent wants to exercise her court-ordered parenting time.

Respondent testified that she signed the child up for T-ball and also provided petitioner with the T-ball schedule for games and practice that fell during his parenting time in the event that he wished to take the child to that activity (see Respondent's Exhibit M). Respondent testified that petitioner threatened that he would be at all the games, notwithstanding the protective language in the 2022 final Order. Respondent testified that she was not aware of any restrictions that would have prevented or precluded petitioner from attending games during his parenting time. However, based on petitioner's continued hostility towards her and after overhearing petitioner's request for the game schedule from the T-ball coach, respondent provided the child's T-ball coach with the 2022 final Order, which set forth the protective language (see id.).

Respondent submitted evidence of text exchanges and communication between the parties from November 2023 which, respondent contends, evidences her attempts at cooperative and flexible co-parenting. By these communications, respondent asserts that she has been keeping petitioner informed with respect to the child's medical and educational well-being. Respondent also submits communication exchanges between the parties which, respondent contends, evidences petitioner's obstructionist and antagonistic behavior in co-parenting, his misconstruction of the plain language of the 2022 final Order, his mischaracterization of his communications with respondent, and his accusations that it is respondent, rather than petitioner, who is violating the 2022 final Order (see e.g. Respondent's Exhibits BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, FFF,^FN11 GGG, HHH, AAAA^FN12). Respondent describes her communication with petitioner as difficult and not focused on the child but, rather, focused on his attempts at vilifying her and mischaracterizing events, thus requiring respondent to constantly refocus the conversation on the child. Respondent testified that notwithstanding the difficulty she experiences when communicating with petitioner, she keeps him updated regarding the child's life events with respect to his education, medical, and social and emotional welfare for the benefit of the child [*13]and because petitioner is the child's father. Respondent testified that both parties have access to the School District's Parent Square application that provides parents with school information. However, notwithstanding petitioner's access to that information, respondent will routinely provide petitioner with school information that comes into her possession.

Respondent testified regarding the trips that she has taken with the child. In 2022, respondent went to Massachusetts to visit respondent's cousins during her parenting time. In September 2022, respondent took a trip to Maryland with the child for the Labor Day weekend, which was her holiday weekend as per the 2022 final Order. In May 2023, respondent took another trip to Maryland with the child. In July 2023, during summer recess, respondent and the child went to Yellowstone and, in August 2023, during summer recess, respondent and the child visited Myrtle Beach. In 2024, respondent and the child visited Sedona, Lake Placid, Florida, and Mayland. In 2025, respondent and the child went to Hawaii. Respondent testified that she provided petitioner with the requisite notice of her trips but conceded that she failed to give him the requisite notice for the 2022 trip to Massachusetts to visit her cousins, having provided him with notice on the date that she left. With respect to the August 2023 Myrtle Beach trip, respondent testified that she notified petitioner that she intended on taking the child for his summer recess during that timeframe, but that she could not find a record of her notifying petitioner specifically of the itinerary (see Respondent's Exhibit CCCC). Respondent testified that this was an honest oversight.

Respondent testified that petitioner has taken several trips with the child over the years — to Texas, Boston, St. Thomas, Ft. Lauderdale, Disney, an overnight in New York City, an overnight in New Jersey, and an overnight in Lake George. Respondent testified that petitioner never notified her of his trip to Lake George, with petitioner justifying his failure to notify as not required pursuant to the 2022 final Order because it was in-state travel. Three other overnight trips - to Boston, New Jersey, and New York City - were taken by petitioner with the child with less than the requisite 48 hours' notice. With respect to the Boston trip, respondent testified that petitioner was vague when providing itinerary information (see e.g. Respondent's Exhibits OOO). When petitioner traveled with the child to Texas in August 2022, petitioner failed to provide respondent with flight details when asked (see Respondent's Exhibit PPP). When petitioner traveled with the child to Texas for the 2025 spring break, petitioner also failed to provide respondent with the requisite 48-hour notification (see Respondent's Exhibit QQQ). And, while respondent had no objections to petitioner taking those trips, respondent testified that her concern is that petitioner is holding her to standards that he, himself, is not willing to abide by.

Respondent testified that petitioner routinely attends the child's medical and dental appointments, which are generally scheduled by respondent. On one occasion, respondent inadvertently missed one of the child's doctor's appointments. The parties, thereafter, jointly contacted the doctor's office to reschedule. Based on the doctor's unavailability and respondent's concern that the child, at least, receive the flu vaccine because it was flu season, respondent scheduled the child for a visit so that he could be inoculated. Petitioner was upset that he could not attend that appointment. With respect to dentist visits, the child, generally, has dental cleanings and examinations twice a year, and appointments are generally made at the conclusion of each visit, at which both parents generally attend. The child was recently scheduled for a 4:00 p.m. dental cleaning in the Spring of 2026. Petitioner wanted the appointment to be moved to 9:00 a.m. so that he could attend. However, because Respondent did not want the child to have [*14]to get up early and potentially miss school, she declined to change that appointment.

With respect to summer recess, the child has been enrolled in summer camps during the summers of 2024 and 2025. In 2024, the child was enrolled in "JMU" summer camp at All Saint's in Albany, New York. JMU had daily activities for the campers, including swimming, arts and crafts, bounce houses, among other activities. In late March 2024, respondent emailed petitioner and advised that she was planning on registering the child for the JMU program but stated that "[the child] does not need necessarily to go here if you have another camp in mind" (Respondent's Exhibit P). Petitioner did not object, and respondent registered the child for the JMU summer program. In June 2024, respondent provided petitioner with the location of the JMU program via e-mail (see Respondent's Exhibits P, Q, LLL). In July 2024, petitioner emailed respondent requesting the location of the JMU camp (see Respondent's Exhibit Q). Respondent, again, provided petitioner with the location of the camp. Petitioner then, among other things, stated that camp payments should be made from the child support paid by petitioner, that he should not be liable for camp costs, and asserts that he was not consulted for this camp nor was his opinion on camp sought (see id).^FN13

With respect to camp enrollment in 2025, the child attended the Discovery Daycamp at the Bethlehem Town Park. Respondent testified that by email dated February 5, 2025, she reached out to petitioner regarding summer camp, and provided petitioner with the link for the Daycamp, and suggested certain dates for camp, "[u]nless [petitioner had] any objection or travel plans" (Respondent's Exhibit N). Respondent also provided petitioner with dates she intended on taking vacation and asked the dates petitioner intended to take vacation. Petitioner did not object to the Daycamp program and did not provide any alternative suggestions. In that thread of e-mails, the parties also discussed vacation blocks during the summer recess. Respondent advised that she intended on taking a vacation with the child from August 9 through August 16. In response, petitioner stated that "I see your vacation [] . . . . makes your vacation longer than the 7 day block as [the child] will be with you that Friday-Saturday. So please ensure you utilize your weekend and not mine" (Respondent's Exhibit N).^FN14 Because the Daycamp ended on August 8, 2025, by email dated July 7, 2025, respondent advised petitioner that the child was interested in soccer camp for the remaining August weeks that were not scheduled as vacation weeks with the parties (see Respondent's Exhibit O). In response, petitioner agreed with enrolling the child in soccer camp, but also accused respondent of failing to collaborate in making these determinations and, based on the child's preference to attend soccer camp, accused respondent of having inappropriate adult conversations with the child.

Respondent testified that in July 2023, petitioner called the police claiming that respondent abducted the child. Police then contacted respondent. However, no charges were filed. Respondent testified that, on another occasion, in advance of her 2023 trip to Yellowstone, petitioner threatened to call the police and have her charged with child abduction if she didn't [*15]agree to provide him with one week of vacation over the Columbus Day holiday, which was respondent's holiday in odd years as per the 2022 final Order (see Petitioner's Exhibit 44). Petitioner then filed a petition seeking modifications to the 2022 final Order. The matter was ultimately resolved by agreement, culminating in a Temporary Order dated September 22, 2023 (Kushner, J.) granting petitioner parenting time from October 6, 2023 until October 11, 2023 during the Columbus Day holiday. With respect to another dispute between the parties regarding respondent's intention to take vacation with the child, petitioner advised "I just refuse to engage in your back-and-forth useless conversation, therefore, your response requires no response as I had already provided you my answer. So there is no violation from my end. It would be yours and I will report you as an abductee of the child if you take him without my consent. This conversation is over. If you take him from daycare on my day, please be ready for the consequences from the police" (Petitioner's Exhibit 45).^FN15

Respondent testified that when the child was three years old, petitioner took videos of the child wherein the child stated that he "didn't want to go to mommy's house." Court proceedings were ongoing at the time, and the Court (Kehn, J.) stated that the child cannot be recorded. In its subsequent Decision and Order, dated July 31, 2024, the Court (Kushner, J.), stated that "the Court is disturbed that Petitioner admits in his Affidavit to consistently and secretly recording his conversations with [the child]" (Court Exhibit B). In that proceeding, petitioner admitted to having violated the 2022 final Order by recording multiple discussions with the child regarding disputes over parenting time and co-parenting issues (see Respondent's Exhibit EEEE).^FN16

Respondent testified regarding a number of other medical and educational appointments that she scheduled with notice provided to petitioner, and to which he didn't object. With respect to school meetings, if petitioner was unable to appear due to his travels, respondent offered to conference petitioner into the meeting virtually (see Respondent's Exhibit YY). On one occasion in 2024, respondent notified petitioner that she wished to schedule a conference with the child's teacher based on what she classified as an emergent situation with another student in the child's school. Specifically, another student allegedly told the child he wished the child was not alive, and the child was exhibiting behavioral changes as a result. Petitioner advised that he could attend any morning appointment except for Thursday. Petitioner ultimately suggested Monday. Based on the teacher's availability and given the gravity of the situation, respondent did not want to wait till Monday and suggested Friday at noon (see Respondent's Exhibit SS). Respondent offered to conference petitioner in the meeting if he could not be there. Petitioner objected to appearing virtually and objected to the Friday conference stating, "I said no" (id.). Respondent suggested petitioner schedule his own conference. Petitioner threated to cancel the meeting and asked if respondent was "slow" (Respondent's Exhibit SS). The conference occurred as [*16]scheduled and both parties were present.

With respect to the child's medical appointments, in 2023, respondent scheduled the child for a dermatology appointment and notified petitioner (see Respondent's Exhibit NN). Petitioner did not object. This appointment was rescheduled by the doctor's office from November to December. Respondent notified petitioner of this change, with no objections.^FN17 Respondent scheduled the child's 2023 yearly physical and informed petitioner, with no objections. On another occasion in 2025, respondent asked the child's dentist to teach the child how to brush his teeth correctly. Respondent advised petitioner of the appointment. When the child's 2025 dental appointment was rescheduled by the provider (see Respondent's Exhibit LL), respondent notified petitioner, who did not object.

In 2024, the child attended a Parent Teacher Association (PTA) sponsored Halloween Ball, which was roughly one week before Halloween. Respondent testified that both parties are members of the school's PTA, and respondent volunteers at many PTA events, and that she volunteered at the 2024 Halloween Ball. In 2024, petitioner provided a costume for the child and brought the child to the Ball. At the event, where respondent was chaperoning, respondent notified petitioner that part of the child's costume, a plastic sickle, was confiscated by school officials and that the child was crying. Respondent requested that petitioner not send toy weapons with the child on Halloween day to avoid a similar situation. Petitioner then accused respondent of being a pathological liar, an incompetent chaperone, and questioned her ability to make appropriate parenting decisions (see Respondent's Exhibit EEE). Respondent provided petitioner with a screen shot from Parent Square of the school's rules regarding costumes, which prohibited the use of both toy weapons and masks. In 2025, the child wanted an inflatable costume for the Halloween Ball. However, the school distributed rules that prohibited such costumes. Respondent provided the school notification, which was accessible on the Parent Square application, to petitioner, and petitioner provided the child with a school-compliant costume.

In May 2025, the child participated in an evening reading program (CAPER) at school sponsored by the PTA. The program and date was announced at a PTA meeting that both parties attended.^FN18 The date of the actual event fell during respondent's parenting time. Respondent testified that at the meeting, she told petitioner that she would sign the child up for the event, and petitioner agreed (see Respondent's MMM). Both parties were at the CAPER event in 2025, which occurred during respondent's parenting time. For the 2026 event, which falls on petitioner's parenting time, the child was not signed up to participate.

Except for snowboarding in February 2024, respondent testified that she is unaware of any activities that petitioner has signed the child up for. Respondent became aware of the child's participation in snowboarding only after he was signed up. Respondent has no objection to the child's participation in extracurricular activities with petitioner but testified that petitioner fails to adhere to the standards he imposes on her.

Respondent testified regarding various times that she communicated with petitioner and provided him with photographs and videos of the child, his art, and the child engaging in his school and extracurricular activities (see Respondent's Exhibits GG, II, JJ, HHH, III).^FN19 Respondent also presented evidence of communication to petitioner notifying that, during 2025, while watching the July 4th fireworks in Albany, they had heard gunshots. In March 2025, respondent provided petitioner with information regarding the Lip Sync competition at school and the dress rehearsal, which was during petitioner's parenting time (see Respondent's Exhibit JJ).^FN20 Respondent provided this information to petitioner because, according to respondent, it was important for the wellbeing of the child and because petitioner is the child's father.

Respondent testified that she did not take the child's lost baby tooth from petitioner. Rather, the child lost the tooth on a Friday and left the tooth at petitioner's home. The child was scheduled to be with respondent after school that day and, because he was excited, the child wished to retrieve his tooth so that the tooth fairy could come visit that evening. Respondent reached out to petitioner asking if they could pick up the tooth, who initially didn't have any objections, but wanted the tooth returned to him. Petitioner then communicated with respondent, advising her that she should have told the child that the tooth fairy visits the house where the child lost the tooth. Since then, the child has lost a tooth at petitioner's home, which petitioner has put in a memory book.

While the parties co-hosted a birthday party in 2022, respondent testified that it was a tense experience, and they haven't co-hosted a party since. With respect to the child's first grade birthday party, respondent scheduled a birthday at APEX at the mall. Respondent did not invite petitioner to this event because it was shortly after the Halloween Ball, at which time the parties had the dispute about the child's costume.

In September 2025, respondent contacted petitioner to advise that the clothes provided by petitioner were too small and, in January 2025, respondent contacted petitioner and advised that the linen pants that the child was wearing were not warm enough for the season (see Petitioner's Exhibit 41). Respondent testified that she has never criticized the foods provided by petitioner to [*17]the child, as claimed.^FN21

While respondent concedes that she contacted petitioner on two occasions because of tire issues in 2022, the car insurance and roadside assistance was still in petitioner's name at those times, and respondent contacted petitioner to get relevant information from him (see Respondent's Exhibit TTT). Petitioner offered to come and help her on both occasions, but respondent testified that she did not ask for his help.^FN22 Respondent testified that there is no current order of protection, but that there is protective language in the 2022 final Order, which respondent wishes to have continue. Respondent testified that petitioner still takes opportunities to disparage and intimidate her and that she is, genuinely, afraid of petitioner.

Respondent testified that the child is excelling in school at the Bethlehem School District, and the parties have had positive feedback about the child's development from both an academic and social standpoint. Respondent testified that the child, under the current parenting schedule, is doing exceptionally well. He knows his schedule, which days are with which parent, and he has meaningful time with both parents. Respondent testified that she does not see any deficiencies with the current order. While the parties do experience difficulty communicating, respondent tries to focus on the child and redirect the conversation when petitioner gets critical or hostile.

On cross-examination, respondent testified that she interprets joint legal custody to mean that the parties share decision-making for medical, religious, and school/education related issues. Respondent does not believe, however, that this shared decision making relates to the child's participation in activities that take place on her parenting days. Respondent testified that over the years, she has enrolled the child in extracurricular activities, including T-ball, soccer, gymnastics, lacrosse, and summer camps. She, concededly, did not confer with petitioner regarding the child's enrollment in T-ball but testified that she provided petitioner with the game schedule, with the dates that games fell during his parenting time in the event that he wished to take the child to T-ball. At the first T-ball game, which fell on petitioner's parenting day, respondent arrived at the game to drop off the child's T-ball equipment.^FN23 Respondent stayed based on the child's request, but she did not attend any other T-ball games that fell during [*18]petitioner's parenting time. With respect to soccer, respondent testified that, over the years, she enrolled the child in soccer at the YMCA, Afrims, and Bethlehem, and did not confer with petitioner or provide him with the soccer schedule since the majority of that activity took place during her parenting time. Respondent did advise petitioner that the child was enrolled in the YMCA soccer skills program and petitioner attended those practices, even though the program took place during her parenting time. Respondent enrolled the child in the Afrims soccer program without consulting petitioner. However, soccer with Afrims took place on Mondays during respondent's parenting time. In 2025, respondent enrolled the child in five sessions of Lacrosse, which were on Tuesdays during respondent's parenting time. Respondent brought the child to a drop-in gymnastics program before he was enrolled in daycare, but this activity pre-dated the 2022 final Order. Respondent testified that Ninja Lab was a drop-in activity, which included drop-in classes, but they all occurred during respondent's parenting time. There was no schedule and no team for Ninja Lab. With respect to summer camps, respondent testified that she consulted petitioner regarding the choice of camp each year, since it affected both of their parenting time.

In response to petitioner's allegations that she took the child out of school without petitioner's consent, she testified that she took the child out of school in kindergarten for two days during the 2023 Thanksgiving week for a trip with the child during her parenting time. Respondent, with petitioner's knowledge, took the child out of school an hour early on June 13, 2024, as it was kindergarten graduation and parents were given the option of leaving early with their children. On September 12, 2024, with petitioner's consent, respondent kept the child out of school because a threat was made to the school. On November 25, 2024, respondent took the child out of school an hour early and, on November 26, 2024, respondent took the child out of school possibly for a dental procedure or because the child was sick. Respondent testified there are no concerns with the child's educational progress from missing these handful of days over the years.

LAW

" 'A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must first show that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the existing custody order that then warrants an inquiry into what custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child' " (Matter of David JJ. v Verna-Lee KK., 207 AD3d 841, 843 [3d Dept 2022], quoting Matter of Zachary C. v Janaye D., 199 AD3d 1267, 1267—1268 [3d Dept 2021]). " 'A change in circumstances is demonstrated through new developments or changes that have occurred since the previous custody order was entered' " (id., quoting Matter of Ramon ZZ. v Amanda YY., 189 AD3d 1913, 1914 [3d Dept 2020]). Only when a change in circumstances has been shown may that Family Court proceed to undertake a best interest analysis (see Matter of Kerwin v Kerwin, 39 AD3d 950, 951 [3d Dept 2007]).

After consideration of all of the evidence, including a review of the exhibits, listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, the Court finds that petitioner has established a change in circumstances since the issuance of the 2022 final Order that would warrant this Court to undertake a best interest analysis. While the Court finds that respondent's one-time unilateral determination to enroll the child in the Bethlehem School District after the parties were at a standstill as to which school the child would attend is, arguably, sufficient to establish a change in circumstances to warrant a best interests analysis (see Matter of Edwim Z. v Courtney AA., 187 AD3d 1352, 1355 [3d Dept 2020]), more convincing is the continued [*19]deterioration of the parties' relationship since the issuance of the 2022 final Order, which negatively affects their ability to co-parent for the sake of the child (see Matter of Freyer v Macruari, 234 AD3d 755, 756 [2d Dept 2025]; Matter of Barrett LL. v Melissa MM., 224 AD3d 942, 943 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 905 [2024]). Accordingly, this Court may properly proceed with an analysis as to whether it is in the child's best interests to modify the 2022 final Order.

"In determining whether modification of a prior custody order will serve the best interests of the child, courts must consider a variety of factors, including the quality of the parents' respective home environments, the need for stability in the child's life, each parent's willingness to promote a positive relationship between the child and the other parent and each parent's past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for the child's intellectual and emotional development and overall well-being" (Matter of Kelly AA. v Christopher AA., 240 AD3d 1011, 1013 [3d Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 910 [2026] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Jennifer HH. v Alavanh II., 243 AD3d 1170, 1172 [3d Dept 2025]).

"[J]oint custody is encouraged primarily as a voluntary alternative for relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion . . . . Where parents have evidenced an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child, joint custody is inappropriate" (Matter of Robinson v Mustakas, 214 AD3d 880, 880—881 [2d Dept 2023][internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Vizueta v Wiley, 226 AD3d 797, 798 [2d Dept 2024]). Here, the record demonstrates that since the issuance of the 2022 final Order, which provided the parties with joint legal custody of the child, their relationship has continued to deteriorate to a point where there is an absence of meaningful communication and cooperation for the benefit of the child. Specifically, the Court finds that petitioner's demonstrated continued hostility towards respondent and his inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child makes continued joint legal custody inappropriate (see Matter of Gold v Khalifa, 223 AD3d 803, 804-805 [2d Dept 2024]).

While the Court believes that both parties truly love the child and want the child to succeed, the record reflects that during most of the interactions between the parties, petitioner takes every opportunity to disparage, provoke, and argue with respondent in response to her attempts at peaceful co-parenting. The record is replete with communications between the parties evidencing petitioner's hostile, manipulative, and antagonistic attitude towards respondent, and his attempts to gaslight her through his assertions that her actions are in violation of the terms of 2022 final Order when, in fact, it is petitioner who has misconstrued the 2022 final Order in an attempt to expand his parenting time.

For example, throughout their co-parenting journey, petitioner has habitually faulted respondent for not providing him with parenting time commencing on Wednesdays at 8:00 a.m. on his scheduled days when the child is not in school. However, the 2022 final Order clearly provides that when the child is not at school, petitioner "[has] parenting time with the subject child Wednesdays after preschool, childcare, school or 5:00 p.m. as the case may be until Thursday morning at 8:00 a.m. or the beginning of preschool, childcare or school, as the case may be" (Respondent's Exhibit A; see Respondent's Exhibit BB). Petitioner has made this specious argument consistently since the issuance of the 2022 final Order and has demanded that respondent produce the child earlier than the time provided in the 2022 final Order (see Respondent's Exhibits BB, CC, DD). Respondent's attempts to direct petitioner to the clear terms [*20]of the 2022 final Order were met with disparagement and sarcasm, with petitioner calling respondent delusional and devious, accusing her of taking advantage of the situation, accusing her of monopolizing the child during his parenting time, and insinuating that respondent has created their difficulties (see Respondent's Exhibits BB, CC, EE, and FF). Even when respondent capitulates to petitioner's demands, he questions respondent's intelligence and accuses her of bullying him (see Respondent's Exhibit EE).

Petitioner has also consistently asserted that he is entitled to more parenting time during vacations and holidays than what was set forth in the 2022 final Order. With respect to summer vacations, for example, the 2022 final Order provides that each party shall have "two (2) seven (7) consecutive period[s] of vacation during the child's summer recess. Each [party] shall provide the other with their preferred dates no less than sixty (60) days in advance" (Respondent's Exhibit A). The 2022 final Order provides that holidays and vacation periods supersede the regular parenting schedule (see Respondent's Exhibit A).

Pursuant to the 2022 final Order, respondent had parenting time for the 2022 Labor Day holiday and advised petitioner that she intended on taking the child to visit family in Maryland. Petitioner objected, stating that "this is my weekend" (Respondent's Exhibit UU). After being directed to the clear terms of the 2022 final Order, petitioner stated "I'm looking at it now but that's inconsistent with other long weekends .So to stay consistent with other long weekends it needs to remain the same" (Respondent's Exhibit UU). In October 2023 — outside seven-day summer recess time frame - petitioner advised that he intended on taking the child out of school for a week for a vacation. Respondent objected. This dispute required Court intervention and resulted in a ruling which permitted petitioner to take the child out for two days of school. Petitioner then objected to respondent taking the child out of school for two days during respondent's 2023 Thanksgiving holiday time even though the trip did not affect petitioner's parenting time. Rather, petitioner argued, incorrectly, that respondent did not provide him with 60 days' notice and because the child would be missing two days of school.

In 2024, respondent advised petitioner that she intended on taking the child to Maryland for the 2024 Easter Holiday — from March 31 through April 6 (see Respondent's Exhibit CCCC). Petitioner, again, argued that "[t]his is a vacation. For vacations you are to provide a 60 day notice. This is NOT a 60 day notice for vacation" (Respondent's Exhibit CCCC). Respondent then cited to the 2022 final Order which provides that the sixty-day notice provision applies to summer recess.

Petitioner, likewise, attempted to manipulate respondent by claiming that she did not have parenting time during the weekend of the 2024 spring recess, even though the 2022 final Order clearly provides that respondent has the child during the April break on even years (see Respondent's Exhibits A, V, CC). Petitioner accused respondent of lying, violating the 2022 final Order, and asserted that respondent "chose[s] to cause [petitioner] undue burden by pretending [she] can't work full time or try to earn more" (Respondent's Exhibit CC). During the 2024 Thanksgiving holiday, petitioner claimed that his parenting time began on Sunday December 1, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. and demanded the return of the child even though petitioner had parenting time the previous weekend and the schedule had returned to the regular parenting schedule (see[*21]Respondent's Exhibits A, DD).^FN24 In other words, upon cessation of the 2024 Thanksgiving Holiday schedule, parenting time reverted back to respondent's time and petitioner's time began on the following Wednesday.

In May 2025, respondent notified petitioner of her intention to take her summer recess with the child (see Respondent's Exhibit N). In response, even though the regular parenting schedule is suspended for summer recess purposes, petitioner stated, "[s]o, let me get this straight, after the log ridiculous essays you wrote, you have now changed your dates to retaliate and ensure that your vacations are falling on my weekends and also my custodial days "(id). This interpretation of the 2022 final Order is false.

While respondent conceded having failed to advise petitioner of a 2023 vacation itinerary to Myrtle Beach and that she failed to give him the requisite notice for 2022 overnight trip to Massachusetts to visit her cousins, the Court credits respondent's testimony that these oversights were unintentional (see Respondent's Exhibit CCCC). The record also reflects that petitioner failed to comply with the vacation and overnight notice requirement set forth in the 2022 final Order at times as well.

With respect to co-parenting regarding the child's education, respondent testified, credibly, that her efforts to consult with and communicate with petitioner to enroll the child in preschool resulted in respondent having to engage in over 1,000 text messages with petitioner, who objected to every proposal until respondent capitulated to his demand to enroll the child in Bright Horizons. Likewise, respondent testified, credibly, that she attempted to engage petitioner with respect to enrolling the child in kindergarten, only to have petitioner reject all of respondent's suggestions and demand that the child attend Albany Academy, thus leading to a standstill. This delay resulted in respondent having to enroll the child in the Bethlehem School Distrct or risk losing the spot. Indeed, apart from the negative consequences of hostile communication upon the parties and the child, the parties' inability to effectively communicate impedes their ability to effectively schedule the child, risking the child's inability to participate in programs, appointments, and activities.

Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record reflects that respondent did, in fact, consult petitioner with respect to summer camps (see Respondent's Exhibits N, O). Petitioner neither objected to respondent's camp suggestions, nor did he provide an alternative plan. For example, in 2025, in response to respondent's communication about enrolling the child in camp, petitioner did not object, but rather argued with respondent about the cost of camp, the blocks used for summer vacation, accused respondent of poisoning the child against him, and telling the child that petitioner purchased fake Jordan shoes and low-quality ramen noodles for the child (see Respondent's Exhibit N).

The record is replete with communication between the parties which evidences a breakdown in effective co-parenting. Petitioner's consistent hostility towards respondent is [*22]established through his argumentative, misleading and, many times, insulting communications.^FN25 While not perfect, respondent has consistently provided petitioner with information about the child, has constantly and appropriately consulted with petitioner regarding decisions regarding the child's educational, social, and medical development, and has even gone above-and-beyond the terms of the 2022 final Order. In addition to routine communication regarding the child, respondent has provided petitioner with monthly calendars for his review and comment and actively involved the child in making special gifts for petitioner for Father's Day. She has provided petitioner with photographs and video recordings of the child's achievements and experiences (see Respondent's Exhibits UUU, YYY and ZZZ). Contrary to petitioner's claims, the record reflects that petitioner has not reciprocated these efforts. Rather than affirmatively and positively sharing information about the child, petitioner's communication with respondent is mostly reactive, wherein he routinely disparages respondent, challenges her fitness as a parent, challenges her intelligence, asserts that she is a liar, and disregards her legitimate communications. Indeed, the Court finds that it was petitioner who violated the terms of the Standard Conditions of Parental Behavior regarding civil treatment attached to the 2022 final Order.

While petitioner faulted respondent for scheduling one dentist appointment in the afternoon, the Court credits respondent's testimony that she consulted petitioner and opted to schedule the appointment in the late afternoon — not to inconvenience petitioner — but rather to ensure that the child did not have to get up too early in the morning and so that the appointment did not interfere with school. Petitioner, on the other hand, is concerned only with how the appointment affects his schedule. Likewise, the Court credits respondent's testimony that she has provided petitioner with information on the child's extracurricular activities that she has enrolled the child in that fall on petitioner's time. The Court does not find petitioner's testimony credible that respondent did not advise him that she was signing the child up for the CAPER reading event. The Court finds that petitioner was at the at the PTA meeting when respondent signed the child up, and petitioner has access to the same educational notifications that respondent has access to.

While petitioner faults respondent for not inviting him to attend the child's activities that occur during her parenting time, petitioner conveniently downplays the clear terms of the 2022 final Order requiring that petitioner stay away from respondent and refrain from communication or any other contact except for purposes of effectuating the 2022 final Order. Along these lines, the Court credits respondent's testimony regarding her communications regarding the substance of the stay away provisions of the 2022 final Order.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's insinuation that respondent simply could not be afraid of him because he assisted when she had car trouble in the past. This Court notes that the law of this case, as established after the matrimonial trial (see A.B v C.B., Index No 2019-262545, Rensselaer County Family Court, McGrath, J. [March 30, 2022]), is that respondent is the victim of domestic violence. Specifically, the Court found that petitioner struck respondent [*23]across the face, threatened to put a bullet through her head, pushed her against a wall, and put his hands around her neck (see Respondent's Exhibit DDDD). And, while there was no evidence of physical abuse perpetrated upon respondent since the 2022 final Order, the record reveals petitioner's continued hostility, aggression, and manipulation in response to respondent's attempts at co-parenting. In contrast, respondent, for the most part, has remained on topic and appropriate in her communications with petitioner, notwithstanding his invective.

Accordingly, based on the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing, the Court finds that the child's best interests would be served by changing the arrangement for legal custody to provide the parties with modified joint legal custody of the child, with respondent having final decision-making authority of the child, after her good faith attempts at communicating with and consulting with petitioner regarding medical, educational, religious, social, and other major issues with respect to the child. The child, who has only known litigation throughout his young life, will only become more aware of the hostilities exhibited between the parties if legal custody is to continue without modification. Notwithstanding petitioner's hostility towards respondent, the Court truly believes that petitioner loves the child and wants to be involved with the child's life as much as possible. Thus, respondent shall continue to consult petitioner with respect to issues prior to making decisions related to the child.

With respect to physical custody, however, the Court declines to make any modifications to the 2022 final Order. The evidence reflects that the child has adapted well to the current schedule, and that he is healthy, bright, and successful. By the current schedule, the Court finds that the child has meaningful and consistent access to both parents, and it is in the child's bests interests to continue the parenting schedule as set forth in the 2022 final Order.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that petition filed under Article 6 of the Family Court Act seeking modification of the 2022 final Order of Custody is hereby granted only insofar as the parties shall now share modified joint legal custody of the child, with respondent having final decision-making authority, and the parental access provisions of the 2022 final Order shall otherwise remain the same; and it is further

ORDERED that the attorney for the child is hereby directed to draft a proposed final Order of Custody consistent with this Decision and Order on notice to all parties; and it is further

ORDERED that any application for the award of counsel fees shall be made returnable, on the submission of papers, within 45 days of the date of this Decision and Order; the Court will schedule a hearing on any application for counsel fees if necessary.

Dated: June 9, 2026

Jessica R. Wilcox

Judge of the Albany County Family Court