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, Westchester County (Duffy, J.), entered November 8, 2007, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the mother’s petition which was for sole custody of the parties’ child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine what is in the best interests of the child, and what will best promote the child’s welfare and happiness” (Matter of Carrasquillo v Cora, 60 AD3d 852 , 853 [2009]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 , 171 [1982]). “Factors to be considered include the parental guidance provided by the custodial parent, each parent’s ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, each parent’s ability to provide for the child financially, the relative
Here, the evidence revealed that the father had a history of criminal conduct and substance abuse. Additionally, the parties’ child, who was 15 years old, had lived with the mother his entire life, and the mother had provided for his financial and emotional needs. Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination that sole custody of the child should be awarded to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Neu v Neu, 303 AD2d at 510 ).
The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Eschbach v. Eschbach 56 NY2d 167 at 171 p. 1068
- Berrouet v. Greaves 35 AD3d 460 at 461 p. 1069
- Peroglu v. Baez 54 AD3d 416 at 417 p. 1069
- Esposito v. Shannon 32 AD3d 471 at 474 p. 1069
- Acosta v. Acosta 259 AD2d 747 at 748 p. 1069
- Neu v. Neu 303 AD2d 509 at 510 p. 1069