## Facts

- A married couple with twin daughters brought a matrimonial action in Supreme Court, Queens County; each sought custody.
- The wife worked as a nurse during much of the marriage and later took a law-firm position with flexible hours.
- The husband became a pediatrician and developed a busy private practice.
- After trial, the court awarded sole custody to the father, finding the mother a “remote control” parent and attributing “extreme emotional problems” to her, relying heavily on testimony from an unlicensed “psychotherapist.”
- Licensed professional materials in the record described the mother as improved and not disqualified from custody.
- The mother had a post-separation intimate relationship; there was no showing it harmed or improperly exposed the children.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s custody award to the father had a sound and substantial basis in the record, warranting appellate deference.
2. Whether the custody analysis improperly applied non-gender-neutral standards, contrary to Domestic Relations Law § 240(1) and best-interests doctrine.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order awarding custody to the father.
- It held the custody determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record and was contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
- It awarded custody of the twins to the mother.
- It remitted the matter for determinations on visitation, child support, and related issues.

## Legal Principles

- Custody is determined under the child’s best interests, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody. (Domestic Relations Law § 240(1))
- Trial-court credibility findings receive deference, but an appellate court may reverse where the custody determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record and is contrary to the weight of credible evidence.
- Custody determinations must apply gender-neutral standards; courts may not impose different parenting, moral, or employment expectations based on a parent’s sex.
- A parent’s sexual or moral conduct is relevant only if credibly shown to affect the child’s welfare; absent a nexus to harm, it should not control the custody outcome.
- Mental-health concerns must be supported by credible evidence; courts should weigh the reliability and qualifications of evaluative testimony.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reassigned custody to the mother after finding that the trial court’s adverse findings lacked credible record support and reflected unequal scrutiny inconsistent with a gender-neutral best-interests analysis, remitting ancillary issues for further proceedings.


Linda R. v. Richard E., 162 A.D.2d 48 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1990)