Filed Date: 3/31/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), entered December 31, 2007, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a change of custody of the parties’ children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The court’s primary concern in making a determination
Moreover, “[t]he mere fact that the [attorney for the children] did not adopt a position that was favorable to [the father] does not demonstrate bias” (Matter of Hanehan v Hanehan, 8 AD3d 712, 714 [2004]). “The role of the [attorney for the children] is to be an advocate for and represent the best interests of the children], not the parents” (Matter of Brittany W., 25 AD3d 560 [2006]; see Matter of Hanehan, 8 AD3d at 714). Contrary to the father’s contention, the attorney for the children took an active role in the proceedings and adequately represented the children’s interests (see Matter of Echols v Weiner, 46 AD3d 825 [2007]; Matter of West v Turner, 38 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; Matter of King v King, 266 AD2d 546, 547 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.