DECISION AND ORDERAFTER A TRIAL On November 3, 2017, A.T.S. [hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner" or "Mother"] filed a petition seeking a de novo determination regarding custody of M.D. (DOB 09/08/2010) and C.D. (DOB 4/10/2013) [the "subject children"]. Petitioner alleges that she has been the primary caregiver for the subject children since their birth; Petitioner is a stay at home mother who works part-time (approximately 8 hours per week) as a dance instructor; M.V.D. [hereafter referred to as "Respondent" or "Father"] was not involved in the day to day care of the subject children while residing with Petitioner; and Respondent is short tempered with the subject children and implements corporal punishment.A trial was held on July 23rd, August 2nd, 15th, 27th, September 4th, November 2nd, 19th, 20th, 21st, December 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th and 12th, 2018. Esq. appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent, and, Esq. appeared as the Attorney for the Children.Petitioner called Respondent, as witnesses and testified on her own behalf. Respondent called and Dr. as witnesses and testified on his own behalf. The Attorney for the Children called the subject children as witnesses and this Court conducted an in camera interview of the children. Dr. Ph.D. was ordered to conduct a forensic evaluation of the parties and testified as the Court’s witness and his report was moved into evidence as the Court’s Exhibit 2.RELEVANT HISTORYOn July 26, 2017 Respondent filed petitions and on September 5, 2017 Petitioner filed petitions both seeking custody of the subject children. On October 12, 2017, the petitions were dismissed and any underlying orders were vacated inasmuch as at the time of filing the parties continued to reside in the same household. On November 3, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant petitions seeking custody of the subject children. On November 6, 2017, Respondent filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that Petitioner and the children’s whereabouts were unknown and seeking return of the children. On November 8, 2017, the parties appeared before the Honorable J.F.C. whereby the writ was deemed satisfied upon the production of the children in court and a Temporary Order of Custody and Parenting time was issued granting Respondent residential custody and providing Petitioner with a schedule of parenting time. Subsequently this matter was transferred to be adjudicated by this Court. On September 4, 2018, this Court issued a Modified Order of Parenting Time setting forth a shared parenting time schedule which the parents have enjoyed to date.1TRIAL TESTIMONYPetitioner’s Witnesses:PetitionerPetitioner is part owner of a dance studio in where she also works as a teacher. Petitioner has resided with the subject children in a 3-bedroom home in since leaving the home she shared with Respondent in November 2017. Prior to M.D.’s birth, Petitioner was employed at working overnight from 11PM until 7AM. Petitioner returned to the same work schedule after M.D. was born and taught dance classes once per week. Respondent cared for M.D. during nights that Petitioner worked and Petitioner cared for him upon her return in the morning until she had to depart for work next. Petitioner also enlisted her mother for aid with child care, particularly when Petitioner needed to sleep. Petitioner was ultimately laid off by and devoted her time to being a “full time mom” while continuing to work at the dance studio “a few days a week.”Petitioner testified that she primarily cared for M.D.’s physical, emotional and developmental needs. In addition to providing for M.D.’s daily needs Petitioner attended “Mommy and me” with M.D. and sought out other programs in the community to aid in his academic and developmental enrichment. Petitioner felt like a single mother inasmuch as Respondent refused to participate in any nursery or school meetings for M.D. and she always attended meetings alone. After C.D. was born, the parties moved to the home that Respondent presently resides in. M.D. began attending Elementary and Petitioner participated in activities with C.D. similar to those she enjoyed with M.D. before he was school aged. Petitioner took the children to all their medical and dental appointments. Respondent would not attend. Petitioner did all the grocery shopping for the home and purchased all the clothing for the children when the parties resided together as an intact family.In September 2014, Petitioner opened her dance studio with her current business partner. The studio is located in the Village of approximately a half mile away from Petitioner’s residence. During the period when the studio was first opening Petitioner worked Tuesday and Thursday nights from 4-10PM and Saturday mornings. During weekdays while Petitioner was at work her mother would come to the parties’ home and care for the children until Respondent returned from work in the evening. On Saturdays C.D. and M.D. would accompany Petitioner to the studio where C.D. participated in class while M.D. played with students waiting to enter class or siblings of students taking class. Petitioner’s dance studio participates in 4 competitions annually (2 of which require Petitioner to travel outside of When Petitioner traveled to competitions her mother would care for the children in her absence. Respondent voiced disapproval of the children spending time at Petitioner’s dance studio indicating that he did not want the children socializing with “trash”.On March 6, 2017, Petitioner told Respondent that she wanted to end their relationship. Respondent advised Petitioner that she was no longer welcome in his home and that he would hire a nanny to care for the children if she left. Once Petitioner expressed her desire to leave Respondent their relationship became increasingly acrimonious to the point of volatility. Petitioner testified to several instances where she and the Respondent would have terrible arguments in front of the children where Respondent would curse at Petitioner and use demeaning language. Petitioner moved into a separate bedroom in the home prior to moving out and Respondent insisted upon the parties’ having a specific parenting schedule and barred Petitioner’s access to the children during his time against the children’s stated wishes. On one occasion Respondent threatened to have Petitioner arrested in the presence of M.D. as a result of Petitioner attempting to attend to C.D. during Respondent’s time.Petitioner believes that Respondent has been surveilling her as she found tracking devices in her car in April or May 2017 and again in October 2017. Photos of the tracking devices and police reports documenting the discovery are in evidence. When Petitioner confronted Respondent about one of the devices she found he indicated that he purchased it to track M.D. in the event that he got lost. Respondent also admitted to having a tracking device on Petitioner’s vehicle when he appeared at the home of Petitioner’s friend (Ms.) despite the fact that Petitioner had not advised him of her whereabouts. Petitioner found another tracking device on her vehicle after leaving Respondent’s home in November 2017 and attributes that device being placed on her vehicle to Respondent. Petitioner believes that Respondent has continued to have her surveilled even throughout the pendency of these proceedings as she has witnessed vehicles following her and an individual parked across the street from her dance studio taking photographs.Petitioner attempted to address the question of custody prior to moving out of Respondent’s home but those petitions were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. On November 3, 2017, Petitioner moved out of Respondent’s home and took the children with her. On the same date, Petitioner filed the within petition seeking an order of custody. Petitioner has found it difficult to co-parent with Respondent as she believes that he communicates with her in a “antagonistic” and “denigrating manner.” Petitioner is cautious not to “incite” Respondent when she exercises her parenting time or when communicating with Respondent as she finds he becomes easily upset. Petitioner testified about an occasion where she sent M.D. back to Respondent wearing a sweatshirt and Respondent became upset. Respondent has also voiced objection to Petitioner pursuing a relationship with a man named accusing Petitioner of trying to replace as the children’s father figure. Petitioner has had difficulty communicating with Respondent regarding shared holidays, school events and extracurricular activities and found Respondent to be unreasonable in limiting her communication with the children during his parenting time to telephone calls instead of video chat.Petitioner believes that she is better suited than Respondent to be the residential custodian of the subject children. Petitioner resides in and is immersed in her community and has been the primary caregiver of the children since birth. Petitioner wants the children to attend schools which are 5 minutes from her home. Petitioner is more involved in the subject children’s social activities and has more patience with the children than Respondent. Respondent lacks kindness and empathy and does not convey the same to the children. Petitioner seeks a parenting time schedule for the Respondent that affords him alternate weekends and a mid-week overnight.M.V.D., RespondentRespondent testified that he owned a from May 2013 until August 2017 that was primarily operated by Petitioner. In August 2017, Petitioner procured a different white which was not owned by Respondent. Respondent testified that upon Petitioner moving out of his home in November 2017, Respondent’s counsel engaged a private investigation firm to surveil Petitioner. The purpose of this investigation was to find evidence rebutting Petitioner’s claim of being a “full-time stay at home mom.” Respondent admitted that he had also purchased a tracking device in the past. Respondent incredibly denied having any knowledge of the specifics of the investigation, its cost, or any reports created as a result of the investigation. Respondent denied personally placing or authorizing anybody to place a tracking device on Petitioner’s vehicle. Further Respondent contends that he was unaware of the outcome of the investigation and at the time of his testimony had not reviewed any reports generated from the investigation.Ms. was M.D.’s first grade teacher during the 2016-2017 school year at Elementary. Ms. described M.D. as a “happy sweet boy” with good friendships who is well received by his peers. Ms. was familiar with Petitioner as Petitioner volunteered at school events and would drop M.D. off at school. Ms. encountered Respondent on one occasion during the last week of school and was unsure of who Respondent was when he first approached M.D. Ms. observed Petitioner interact with the subject children but never observed Respondent interact with either of the children. Ms. recalled speaking with Respondent over the telephone on one occasion in July 2017 at which time Respondent informed her that Petitioner was planning to move with the subject children.Ms. was M.D.’s second grade teacher during the 2017-2018 school year at Elementary. Ms. described M.D. as an “average” student, “very social” and “well liked”. Ms. was familiar with Petitioner because she was the class mom and participated in organizing activities and trips for the class. Ms. first met Respondent in September 2017 at which time he advised her that he and Petitioner were separating and that he wished to be informed of everything happening with M.D. Ms. had a similar conversation with Petitioner who advised Ms. that she wished to keep the separation transition “smooth”.Ms. testified that during that school year she would send home duplicates of everything pertaining to M.D. and provided notices to whichever parent was having parenting time on the day that M.D. was picked up. On Valentine’s Day 2017, M.D. was marked late for school and when Ms. inquired of Petitioner (who happened to be present at the school) regarding M.D.’s whereabouts she was advised by Petitioner that it wasn’t Petitioner’s day to drop the child at school. Soon after speaking to Petitioner, Ms. received an email from Respondent informing her that he was “upset” that Ms. disclosed to Petitioner that M.D. was marked late for school and that she should have contacted him. Subsequent to this incident Ms. received the parties’ parenting time schedule and was advised to only contact the parent who was scheduled to have parenting time on the date that a particular issue arose.Ms. observed both parents interact with M.D. at school activities and field trips and found that they both appeared to have a loving and positive relationship with the subject child. Ms. observed both parents to sit separately at school events and have very little interaction with one another.Ms. was both children’s nursery school teacher at (M.D. from 2013-2014 and C.D. from 2016-2017). Ms. describes C.D. as “social” and M.D. as “reserved”. Ms. testified that Petitioner attended all events held at the school for the subject children. Ms. had no recollection of any contact with Respondent except for once when he was present at a school gala and refused to come over and speak with her at Petitioner’s urging.Ms. is Petitioner’s best friend and a hygienist at the office where Petitioner and the children receive dental care. Ms. has known Petitioner since high school and was present during the delivery and birth of subject child M.D. serving as Petitioner’s Lamaze coach in the absence of Respondent. When the parties resided together Ms. had opportunity to visit their home on many occasions. During her visits at the parties’ home, Ms. never observed Respondent engage “affectionately” with the subject children. Ms. further testified that when she came to the parties’ home Respondent would barely greet or acknowledge her and would retreat to an area in the home separate from where they were socializing and during larger events would only attend to his family and guests.Ms. visits Petitioner’s dance studio at least once a month and socializes with Petitioner frequently throughout the week. Ms. testified that when she visits Petitioner’s dance studio, she observed C.D. and M.D. either playing at the countertop up front with other children or C.D. dancing in the studio. Ms. claimed ignorance of Petitioner’s work schedule despite seeing and speaking with her regularly. Ms. contradictorily testified that she was “not aware” of who is but met him once at the dance studio and on another occasion when he came to C.D.’s birthday party. Ms. has attended many of the subject children’s birthday parties and hosted C.D.’s fifth birthday party. Ms. did not extend an invitation to Respondent when she hosted C.D.’s party.Ms. has been a teacher at Petitioner’s dance studio since 2015 and an occasional babysitter for the subject children since 2011. Ms. testified that she has observed Respondent interact with the subject children and he did not appear to be “loving”. Ms. has also witnessed Petitioner hug and kiss the children but never saw Respondent do the same. An incident occurred in March 2017 when Petitioner was at Ms. home preparing for a dance competition and Respondent came to the home and argued with Petitioner. Ms. did not hear the specifics of the argument but clearly heard Respondent reprimand Petitioner and tell her to “come home” and “be a woman.” Ms. has met on several occasions and observed the subject children engage with him in a “friendly” manner.Respondent’s Witnesses:M.V.D., RespondentRespondent is a partner at a law firm in. Respondent’s typical work hours are Monday through Friday from 9:00AM through 5:00PM. At the time of M.D.’s birth, Petitioner worked overnights at leaving the parties’ home at 9:30PM and returning at approximately 7:30AM. Petitioner also worked at in on Fridays from 5:00PM to 11:00PM and Sundays from 8:00 AM to 2:00PM. Petitioner stopped working at the hospital in late 2011 but continued to work at. Respondent described caring for M.D. through the night and attending to his colic as well as the morning routine (starting at 5:00AM) that he enjoyed with the infant before departing for work. In 2013, C.D. was born and M.D. was attending Nursery School. Petitioner continued to work at the dance studio on the weekends. Respondent attended various events at M.D.’s nursery school as did Petitioner. Respondent further testified that there were events he attended that Petitioner did not because she was working.Petitioner opened her dance studio with her partner in 2014. Petitioner assured Respondent that the process of opening the studio would be “seamless” and that she would be home around 5:00PM each night. Despite her assurances Petitioner would come home around 8:00 or 9:00PM most nights and sometimes at midnight. From 2014 through 2017 Petitioner worked at her studio during the week and on the weekends and averaged 30-40 hours a week at the studio during competition season. Attending to administrative tasks for the studio also often occupied Petitioner’s time at home as well. The studio was a large source of contention between Respondent and Petitioner as he was financially supporting the dance studio and expressed to Petitioner that he could no longer afford to do so.On March 2, 2017, Petitioner told Respondent that she was leaving him and taking the children with her and that he would be responsible to pay their expenses when she left. Although Petitioner expressed a desire to end the relationship, the parties continued to reside together and Respondent hoped they would reconcile. In summer of 2017, Respondent noticed that Petitioner began to withdraw from engaging with families in the community in favor of spending time with friends in. Petitioner would take the children with her to work or to her mother’s home and return home late at night. Petitioner would not inform Respondent of her and the children’s whereabouts and instructed the children not to share their location with him.On November 3, 2017, Respondent returned from work to find his home security cameras disabled, missing items around the house, and Petitioner and the children were absent. Respondent repeatedly attempted to contact Petitioner to ascertain the children’s whereabouts without success. Respondent later learned that evening that Petitioner filed an application in court earlier in the day seeking custody of the children. Once Respondent understood what was happening he again tried to contact Petitioner to speak with the children as well as arrangements for M.D. to attend the father/son breakfast at his school the next day. Respondent did not see or have any contact with his children aside from three brief phone calls until they were produced in court on November 8th pursuant to a court order.Respondent testified that since they have separated and throughout these proceedings Petitioner has restricted or attempted to restrict his access to the children on several occasions. Respondent missed attending the Bring Your Daddy to Breakfast event at M.D.’s school in 2017 due to Petitioner removing the children from the home and limited Respondent’s time with the children at the event in 2018 to a few hours. Petitioner took the children trick or treating in the area for Halloween 2017 and did so again in 2018 despite representing to Respondent the year prior that they would alternate. Petitioner scheduled C.D.’s dance recital on Father’s Day in 2018 despite being provided several potential dates by the venue. Petitioner caused the children to leave M.D.’s boy scout picnic early to take the children to the beach with her alleged paramour. On one occasion Petitioner arrived at C.D.’s school at dismissal during Respondent’s parenting time and encouraged C.D. to choose who she wanted to go home with. Respondent did not spend time with the children this past Thanksgiving because Petitioner emailed him and told him that she was “keeping” the holidays. Petitioner restricted Respondent from attending Pasta-Bingo night at the children’s school as she indicated that she would be taking them and it was her parenting time and then failed to take the children. During events that both parties have attended for the children Petitioner has prevented the children from interacting with Respondent and went so far as to stop Respondent from sharing “the peace” with C.D. during M.D.’s communion mass. Respondent testified that he has been accommodating about switching parenting time or allowing Petitioner to have access to the children during his scheduled parenting time. Petitioner has not extended similar courtesies to Respondent without the intervention of the court or counsel. Respondent acknowledged that there was a period where he did not permit Petitioner to contact the children on their iPads during his parenting time but that was because Respondent’s contact was excessive and disruptive of his time with the children.Respondent believes that he should be the children’s primary custodian and described the significant differences in their respective parenting styles. Respondent testified that when the parties resided together Petitioner would sleep late and then “create a sense of urgency” in the mornings by yelling and cursing at M.D. to get ready. At night, Petitioner would yell at the subject children to “go to f—ing sleep” and tell them “you don’t f—ing listen”. In response, Respondent would “relieve” Petitioner and put the children to sleep. Petitioner exhibited a lack of interest in the children in the evenings as she would be on her phone or the computer attending to dance studio business. When Petitioner was home alone with the children she would often call Respondent and complain about the children’s behavior. Since the parties have separated Petitioner has failed to consistently take M.D. to his Cub Scout meetings during her parenting time to the point where Respondent had to schedule private sessions with the pack leader so that M.D. could progress with the rest of the group. Conversely, M.D. has not missed any meetings while in Respondent’s care.Respondent enjoys great flexibility in his work schedule and expects that this will increase over time as he will be “winding down his career”. Respondent is able to get the children ready for school in the mornings and be present when they arrive home off the bus. Respondent lives in the home that the children were raised in throughout the majority of their lives where C.D. and M.D. have their own bedrooms, a playroom, and significant property on which they enjoy outdoor activities. The children go to school in the community and are bonded to friends in the community who they enjoy play dates with.Respondent has concerns that if Petitioner were awarded residential custody of the children that she would continue to impede communication between Respondent and the children and work to drive a wedge between them. Petitioner also has a busy work schedule and relies heavily on 3rd parties for child care. Respondent is available to care for the children directly during his parenting time and would only use a 3rd party for child care in rare instances. Respondent plans to work longer hours when the subject children are enjoying parenting time with Petitioner in order to take more time off to spend with the children in the summer. Respondent believes that he is more capable of facilitating co-parenting than Petitioner as he has exhibited an ability to compromise unlike Petitioner. Respondent wants the children to continue to attend the School District as it has been deemed to be a superior school district to Respondent is willing to split the transportation of the children between and with Petitioner if awarded residential custody.Ms. is a teacher with the School District and was M.D.’s art teacher in the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. testified that she instructed and facilitated the creation of M.D.’s art throughout the school year. Respondent’s counsel inquired about specific art projects that M.D. made, however Ms. was unable to recall with clarity for which occasions M.D. created his artwork and had no knowledge of who, if anyone, he gave his artwork to.Ms. is a social worker at Elementary School. Ms. Is familiar with the parties inasmuch as there were a few incidents that transpired during the 2017-2018 school year involving the subject children where she was enlisted to provide support. In February 2018, Ms. was engaged by Ms. (M.D.’s teacher) to address a conflict that arose when Respondent expressed upset that Ms. informed Petitioner that M.D. arrived late to school on one of Respondent’s scheduled parenting time days. As a result, Ms. created a calendar system specifically for the family to be utilized by school officials to determine which parent to contact if an issue arose on a particular date. This was the first time in Ms. Greenberg’s career as a school social worker that she felt compelled to create such a system for a student with parents in separate households. Ms. was aware that the parties were engaged in custody litigation and made efforts to ensure that the school remained “neutral and fair” in an effort to prevent “future issues”.In the beginning of C.D.’s kindergarten year she was called to the classroom by C.D.’s teacher and observed C.D. crying because she was sad that she was not going to see her mother after school that day. Ms. found the frequency of C.D.’s crying to be atypical for a kindergarten student and advised both parties via email of her observations. Both parties responded to Ms. ‘s email and she spoke with Petitioner by phone and met with Respondent in person. Soon thereafter C.D.’s crying subsided and she otherwise appeared “like any typical kindergarten student”. Ms. further testified about an issue that arose with M.D. regarding passing notes in class, treating some classmates unkindly, and dishonesty about his actions. Ms. spoke with both parties regarding M.D.’s behavior and the situation was resolved to the school’s satisfaction.Ms. is C.D.’s kindergarten teacher. Ms. testified that although C.D. has adjusted well to kindergarten, she had a few incidences in the beginning of the school year that prompted Ms. to contact the school’s social worker (Ms. C.D. would cry for Petitioner and express her “sadness” that she wasn’t going to see Petitioner for many days. Ms. described C.D. as “very social” and indicated that her crying ceased around early October of the school year.Mrs. [hereinafter referred to as "Grandmother"] is Petitioner’s mother and the children’s maternal grandmother. When M.D. was born Grandmother would go to the parties shared residence at least two days per week to assist Petitioner in caring for M.D. From 2014 through 2017, Grandmother also assisted the parties with child care by picking up the subject children from either school or the bus stop and caring for them in their home. Respondent regularly returned home from work between 6:30PM and 8:00PM and then Grandmother would leave for the day. Grandmother also babysat when Petitioner traveled for dance competitions and would stay overnight in the parties’ home even when Respondent was present so that he would be free to engage in recreational activities such as golfing.Grandmother described Respondent as a “bad father” because he is “pretty distant” when engaging with the subject children and shows “no signs of emotions” such as hugs and kisses. Grandmother further testified about an incident that occurred when the parties resided in where she observed Respondent “uncontrollably yelling” at M.D. who was only three at the time.Ms. is Executive Director at the performing arts camp where Petitioner’s dance studio held their 2018 dance recital. Ms. communicated with Petitioner regarding picking a date for the recital and proffered a list of available dates for Petitioner to select from. The email communication between Petitioner and Ms. is in evidence. It was ultimately Petitioner’s decision to schedule the dance recital on Father’s Day.Ms. is Petitioner’s business partner as well as an instructor at the dance studio. Ms. works at the studio approximately 15 hours per week and testified Petitioner works 15-20 hours a week. Ms. testified that during the 2014-2015 dance season Petitioner worked at the studio every day except Sundays; in 2015-2016 Petitioner worked every day except Thursdays; and in 2016-2017 Petitioner worked Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and alternating Saturdays. At the time of Ms. s testimony Petitioner’s schedule was similar to the one she worked the prior year.Dr. PhDDr. is a forensic psychologist and was qualified in this matter as an expert in child custody evaluations and the methodology of conducting such evaluations. Dr. reviewed the court appointed forensic psychologist’s (Dr. records in this matter including his notes, the tests administered, and the forensic report. Dr. testified that in his expert opinion that Dr. deviated from the standards and guidelines promulgated by the American Psychological Association and “took liberties” using tests that do not have any established accuracy and validity. The forensic evaluator has an obligation to report the strengths and weaknesses of tests administered and the validity of data collected and failure to do so creates a misleading presentation. Dr. found that the necessary disclosures were not included in Dr. report. Dr. testified that he was initially engaged by Respondent’s counsel at the commencement of these custody proceedings to assist in the preparation of Respondent’s case. Dr. has never met or interviewed Petitioner or the subject children and offered no opinion with respect to either parties’ ability to parent the children.Attorney for the Children’s Witnesses:This Court conducted in camera interviews with both children in the presence of their counsel. The children arrived to Court appropriately dressed and appear well cared for. Both M.D. and C.D. are well-mannered, articulate and generally happy children.Court’s Witness:Dr.Dr. is a psychologist who was tasked by this Court to conduct a forensic evaluation of the parties and the subject children and submit a report containing his findings. Dr. forensic report is in evidence. Dr. was qualified as an expert in child and family psychology and forensic psychology. Dr. offered testimony regarding his methodology in conducting an evaluation of the parties as well as the basis for his recommendation that the parties share legal custody and that Petitioner be awarded residential custody of the subject children. Significantly, Dr. did not find that either party possesses any deficit that poses potential harm to the children or inhibits the parties’ ability to form a loving bond and healthy relationship with the children. Dr. testified that there is no tremendous difference between Petitioner and Respondent and that either party would make a suitable custodial parent.DISCUSSION AND DECISIONAfter hearing the testimony of the parties and reviewing all of the evidence submitted herein, and the Court having searched the statewide registry of orders of protection, the sex offender registry and the Family Court’s warrant and child protective records, and no results being found, this Court finds that the best interest of the subject children would be served by an award of joint legal custody to the parties with residential custody to Respondent solely for the purpose of determining the children’s school district and a shared parenting time schedule between the parties.Any court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine what is for the best interest of the children, and what will best promote its welfare and happiness. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 169 (2d Dept. 1982). While concerns such as the financial status and the ability of each parent to provide for a child should not be overlooked by a court in determining an award of custody, an equally valid concern is the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development. Id. In all cases, courts should be free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination of custody. Tropea v. Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 (2d Dept. 1996).Both parties advanced arguments that their ability to spend time with the children and different points in the children’s lives render him/her the superior caregiver. Petitioner boasts that she has devoted herself to her children as a “full time” mom and that Respondent was absent during the children’s infancy leaving her to care for them alone. Respondent attempts to demonstrate Petitioner’s deficiency by arguing that she has always worked throughout the children’s lives and her responsibilities as a business owner impede her ability to attend to her children’s needs. Both parties’ arguments are unavailing.This Court is compelled to disabuse both parties of the fallacy of a “part-time” versus “full-time” parent. A parent that works outside of the home is not per se less of a parent than one that devotes more time to domestic responsibilities. There are no percentages in parenting. What is paramount is the environment that each parent provides and the quality of the time that a child enjoys while with his/her parent. The parenting arrangement that the parties employed prior to ending their relationship was a function of their personal values, their respective strengths and the various resources they brought to their household. The proof of the significant import and impact the parties have had in the children’s lives is demonstrated by the love that the children freely vocalize sharing for both parents. Further, since their separation both parents have demonstrated a sincere interest in the children’s well-being and willingness to actively engage in the children’s lives attending the children’s school, extracurricular and religious events despite the parties’ professional obligations. This Court finds that there is no superior parent and that both parties are capable of providing a loving home for the children and aiding in their emotional, physical and intellectual development.Inasmuch as this Court has determined that both parents possess the traits necessary to act in the role of custodian an order of joint custody best serves the interests of the subject children. Visitation is a joint right of both the noncustodial parent and the child and that the best interests of the child would be furthered by being nurtured and guided by both natural parents. See Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114 (2d Dept.1995). Joint custody is inappropriate where the parties are antagonistic to one another inasmuch as it impedes their ability to cooperate on matters pertaining to the children. See Matter of Floria v. Niven, 123 AD3d 708 (2d Dept. 2014); Matter of Lawrence v. Davidson, 109 AD3d 826 (2d Dept. 2013); Matter of Wright v. Kaura, 106 AD3d 751 (2d Dept. 2013). In the same vein that this Court recognizes the import of a child being guided by both parents, it finds that custody is also a right jointly held by both parents unless there is a sound and substantial basis in the record demonstrating that such an arrangement is unsustainable and would hamper furtherance of the children’s interests.Admittedly, the parties experienced significant acrimony in the months leading up to their separation which was only exacerbated once the parties dug into what would prove to be contentious litigation. At the outset of these proceedings the parties’ animus was primarily derived from their disagreement over with whom the children should primarily reside and how the parties would share their parenting time. Throughout the course of these proceedings the parties have continued to remain at odds but the disputes that were brought to this Court’s attention for immediate resolution could most aptly be described as airing petty grievances as opposed to major decisions affecting the welfare of the children upon which the parties could not agree. In fact, despite their personal feelings towards one another both parties expressed in their testimony and forensic interviews that they recognized the importance of the other parent’s role in their children’s lives and sought to find a means to co-parent in the future. This Court is confident that while its decision to award the parties joint custody might be a difficult pill for the parties to swallow, ultimately it will have the curative effect of giving the parties a healthy foundation upon which they can build their co-parenting relationship.While this Court finds that the Modified Temporary Order of Parenting Time, dated September 5, 2019, has been effective in temporarily resolving the question of shared parenting time for this family it does not serve the children’s interests in the long term. In determining the final schedule of shared parenting time issued herein this Court considered the distance that each party resides from one another, the length of the subject children’s potential commute to school from each parent’s home and the frequency in which they will have to make that commute on school days, the relative merits of each of the proposed school districts, the children’s ties to and relationships within the parties’ respective communities, the parties’ work schedules, and the children’s stated interests. This Court endeavored to create a schedule that is balanced and affords both parties meaningful and regular access to the children. In consideration of all of the aforementioned factors this Court finds that the children’s interests are best served by residing with Respondent primarily during the school year (September through June) and residing with Petitioner primarily during the summer months (July and August).Accordingly, this Court grants Petitioner’s application for an order of custody; and it is herebyOrdered that both parties shall enjoy joint legal custody of the subject children; and it is furtherOrdered that both children shall remain enrolled in and attend school in the School District through graduation from high school or until such time as neither parent resides in the school district or both parties mutually agree to enroll the children in another school; and it is furtherOrdered that both parties shall fully discuss and consult with one another regarding all major decisions regarding the subject children, including but not limited to religion, education, medical treatment, and decisions affecting the children’s legal interests. The parties are to continue to engage the services of the children’s current pediatrician and dental care providers. If the children’s current providers are no longer in a position to provide treatment or the parties need to engage any additional doctors, dentists, therapists or other healthcare specialists the parties are to consider the referral recommendations of the children’s current care providers and consult with one another and come to a mutual agreement about which provider to engage. After full discussion and consultation if the parties cannot come to an agreement father shall have final decision making authority regarding education and legal decisions and mother shall have final decision making authority regarding medical decisions, religion and where the children attend summer camp. Both parents shall have full and unfettered access to any of the children’s records that a parent is legally entitled to as well as may contact and discuss the children’s progress with their schools, teachers, doctors, dentists, tutors, coaches, etc. Routine parenting decisions of a day to day nature shall be made by the parent that is exercising parenting time; and it is furtherOrdered that both parties shall fully discuss and consult with one another regarding what if any extracurricular activities the children shall participate in throughout the year. In the event the parties are not able to reach an agreement regarding the children’s participation in extracurricular activities each party may enroll each child in one extracurricular activity of each party’s choosing;2 and it is furtherOrdered that both parties shall provide one another with notice of the subject children’s school meetings, performances, games, recitals, etc. immediately upon receiving notice of the same and if attendance at any of these events is limited shall share the number of tickets available equally with one another; and it is furtherOrdered that neither party shall engage in any speech or behavior that would have the effect of harming the children’s relationship with the other parent. Neither party shall denigrate the other parent or discuss the history of the parties’ litigation in the presence of the children or within the children’s communities; and it is furtherOrdered that the parents shall enjoy shared parenting time with the children pursuant to the following parenting time schedule:3The parenting time schedule as set forth in the parties’ Modified Temporary Order of Parenting Time, dated September 5, 2019, shall remain in effect until Sunday, April 28, 2019.Commencing Sunday, April 28, 2019, for the months of September through June, Father shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children weekly from Sunday at 8PM through Wednesday at 9AM (or the commencement of the school day). Mother shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children weekly from Wednesday at 9AM (or the conclusion of the school day) through Friday at 9AM (or the commencement of the school day).Commencing Friday, May 3, 2019, in the months of September through June, Father shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children on alternating weekends from Friday at 9AM (or the conclusion of the school day) through Sunday at 8PM.Commencing Friday, May 10, 2019, in the months of September through June, Mother shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children on alternating weekends from Friday at 9AM (or the conclusion of the school day) through Sunday at 8PM.Commencing July 1, 2019, in the months of July and August, Mother shall enjoy weekly parenting time with the children from Monday at 9AM (or if the children are attending camp at the end of the camp day) through Thursday at 9AM (or if children are attending camp at the commencement of the camp day).Commencing July 4, 2019, in the months of July and August, Father shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children on alternating weekends from Thursday at 9AM (or if the children are attending camp at the end of the camp day) through Monday at 9AM (or if children are attending camp at the commencement of the camp day).Commencing July 11, 2019, in the months of July and August, Mother shall enjoy parenting time with the subject children on alternating weekends from Thursday at 9AM (or if the children are attending camp at the end of the camp day) through Monday at 9AM (or if children are attending camp at the commencement of the camp day).School Breaks and Holidays4-The parties shall enjoy parenting time with the children on school breaks and holidays as follows:Labor Day Weekend-Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even yearsColumbus Weekend-Mother shall enjoy in odd years and Father shall enjoy in even yearsHalloween-Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even yearsThanksgiving Recess-Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even yearsWinter Recess (excluding Christmas)-Mother shall enjoy in odd years and Father shall enjoy in even yearsChristmas Day (from Dec 25th at 12PM through Dec 26th at 12PM)-Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even yearsMid-Winter Recess-Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd yearsSpring Recess-Mother shall enjoy in even years and Father shall enjoy in odd yearsMemorial Weekend-Father shall enjoy in even years and Mother shall enjoy in odd yearsIndependence Day (4th of July)-Father shall enjoy in odd years and Mother shall enjoy in even yearsMother’s Day and Father’s Day to be shared with the appropriate parent from 10AM-8PMChildren’s birthday-Each parent shall be entitled to enjoy parenting time with both of the children on either child’s birthday. If the child’s birthday falls on a school day the parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time shall be entitled to two hours of uninterrupted parenting time after school with the children. If the child’s birthday falls on a weekend the parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time shall be entitled to four hours of uninterrupted parenting time on the birthday. The parent that is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time will have priority in selecting what time he/she seeks to enjoy with the children.Parents’ birthday-Each parent shall be entitled to enjoy parenting time with both of the children on their respective birthdays. If the parent’s birthday falls on a weekday that he/she is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time that parent shall be entitled to two hours of uninterrupted parenting time after school/camp with the children. If the parent’s birthday falls on a weekend that the celebrant is not regularly scheduled to have parenting time that parent shall be entitled to four hours of uninterrupted parenting time on their birthday. The parent that is celebrating his/her birthday shall have priority in selecting what time he/she seeks to enjoy with the children.In addition to the schedule of parenting time listed herein, Father shall be entitled to up to one week (seven consecutive days) of parenting time during the summer months. Father must notify Mother by April 1st of each year (May 1st for 2019 only) which week he selects to exercise this additional time. Such exercise of parenting time shall not interfere with the subject children’s attendance at summer camp.The parties shall commence their respective periods of parenting time by picking up the children from the children’s school/camp (if applicable), the other parent’s home, or any other location mutually agreed upon between the parties.The party that is enjoying parenting time shall ensure that the subject children contact the parent that is not enjoying parenting time at least once daily via video conference (if available) or telephone at a time that is mutually agreed upon between the parties. At the time each child reaches 13 years of age the party who is enjoying parenting time shall no longer be required to physically facilitate daily calls/contacts but must make every effort to encourage the children to initiate regular contact with the other parent.When travelling with the children over an extended period of time (48 hours or more) or over a substantial distance (100 miles or more) the parent traveling with the children must provide the non-traveling parent notification of travel, an itinerary, and a means by which the child can be contacted during travel.Each parent will cooperate with ensuring that the children’s passports and travel documents are kept up to date and will execute any releases necessary to ensure the same.The parties shall enjoy any additional parenting time or modified schedule of parenting time as mutually agreed upon between the parties.It is Ordered that the parties shall continue to use the Family Wizard application5 to communicate regarding adjustments to the parenting time schedule, calendaring appointments and activities, sharing information about the children’s school, travel, extracurriculars, social activities and the like. The parties shall annually renew their subscriptions to the application until such time that both parties expressly agree to terminate its use.6This is the decision and order of the Court.Dated: March 29, 2019Pursuant to section 1113 of the family court act, an appeal must be taken within thirty days of receipt of the order by appellant in court, thirty-five days from the mailing of the order to the appellant by the clerk of the court, or thirty days after service by a party or attorney for the child upon the appellant, whichever is earliest.Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed:Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given]:
