Majority
—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), dated April 25, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for a change of custody of the subject child from the mother to him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The best interests of the child are the paramount consider
Moreover, the Family Court was not required to follow the recommendations of the forensic examiner and the Law Guardian (see Berstell v Krasa-Berstell, 272 AD2d 566 [2000]; Matter of Hopkins v Wilkerson, 255 AD2d 319 [1998]). The Family Court did not arbitrarily disregard the expert opinion offered in this case (see Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114 [1995]). Rather, its reasons for rejecting the recommendations were fully explained and its reasoning is supported by the record (see Matter of Hopkins v Wilkerson, supra). Goldstein, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer 55 NY2d 89 at 94 p. 505
- Sullivan v. Sullivan 190 AD2d 852 p. 505
- Ellen K. v. John K. 186 AD2d 656 p. 505
- Eschbach v. Eschbach 56 NY2d 167 p. 505
- Berstell v. Krasa-Berstell 272 AD2d 566 p. 505
- Hopkins v. Wilkerson 255 AD2d 319 p. 505
- Young v. Young 212 AD2d 114 p. 505