Introduction

In Matter of Mackenzie OO. v. Ian NN. (2025 NY Slip Op 05733), the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed a Family Court order awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody of two young children and limiting the father to supervised visitation. The case arose from a contested initial custody proceeding following the parties' separation, with the central dispute focusing on the father's long-standing alcohol abuse and domestic violence, much of it occurring in the children's presence.

The opinion is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it treats retail loyalty-program purchase data (showing massive alcohol purchases) as powerful corroborating evidence of ongoing substance abuse that undermined the father's credibility and parenting capacity. Second, it reinforces that a demonstrated pattern of coercive control and verbal/emotional abuse—punctuated by physical acts of intimidation—constitutes domestic violence that must be factored into the best-interests analysis and can justify supervised visitation when the evidence shows detriment to the children.

Parties:

• Petitioner/Respondent on appeal: the mother (represented by counsel).
• Respondent/Appellant: the father (pro se on appeal).
• Attorney for the children: appointed counsel.

Background and Procedural Posture

The parties cohabited from 2015 to 2023, were briefly engaged, and share two children (born 2019 and 2020). During the relationship, the mother was financially dependent per the parties' arrangement while the father provided income. The relationship deteriorated as the mother reported the father's daily intoxication, escalating verbal and emotional abuse, and physical intimidation (including punching a wall near her head). After separation in 2023, disputes intensified, including unilateral school enrollments by both parties.

In October 2023, the mother filed for custody; the father counterpetitioned. A January 2024 temporary joint custody order with scheduled parenting time was entered. In February 2024, the mother sought to suspend the father's time, presenting evidence that he had continued heavy drinking in the children's presence. After an emergency hearing, the court maintained joint legal custody but required the father's visitation to be supervised.

Following a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court (Cortland County) awarded sole legal and physical custody to the mother and continued supervised visitation for the father. The father appealed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed the Family Court's order, holding that:

• The best-interests factors favored the mother, who, despite past mental health challenges, had engaged in treatment and provided a safe and stable environment.
• The record supported findings that the father's persistent alcohol abuse impaired his caregiving, created volatile and abusive dynamics in front of the children, and culminated in specific safety incidents (including a child becoming trapped under the father's unconscious body).
• Documentary evidence (loyalty-account shopping records reflecting more than 4,000 beer purchases in approximately six months during the litigation) provided compelling corroboration contradicting the father's claimed sobriety.
• Domestic violence—primarily coercive control and verbal/emotional abuse with accompanying physical intimidation—was proven by a preponderance and properly weighed in the best-interests analysis.
• Given the evidence, supervised visitation was warranted under the presumption favoring a relationship with the noncustodial parent because the mother demonstrated compelling reasons and substantial evidence that unsupervised parenting time would be detrimental to the children.
• The father's remaining appellate claims (e.g., frivolous litigation, assigned-counsel objections) were unpreserved, previously decided and barred by law of the case, or meritless.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Matter of Mary AA. v. Lonnie BB., 204 AD3d 1355 (3d Dept 2022) and Matter of Megan UU. v. Phillip UU., 193 AD3d 1287 (3d Dept 2021): These decisions articulate the best-interests framework for initial custody, emphasizing parental fitness, past performance, stability, and willingness to foster the child's relationship with the other parent. The Third Department applied these factors, finding the mother's consistent treatment, improved stability, and the father's exclusionary school enrollment conduct (omitting the mother from paperwork) weighed against him.
• Matter of Dusten T. v. Trisha U., 235 AD3d 1215 (3d Dept 2025): Cited to reaffirm the standard and validate awards of sole custody where the record supports safety and stability concerns. It provides contemporaneous Third Department support for similar outcomes where best interests favor one parent due to the other’s impairments.
• Matter of Angelica CC. v. Ronald DD., 220 AD3d 1064 (3d Dept 2023), lv denied 40 NY3d 909 (2024), and Matter of Christopher WW. v. Avonna XX., 202 AD3d 1425 (3d Dept 2022): These cases set the supervised visitation threshold: there is a presumption that a child benefits from a relationship with the noncustodial parent, but supervised visitation may be ordered where compelling reasons and substantial evidence show unsupervised access would be detrimental. The court relied on this line to justify continued supervision given the father’s demonstrated pattern of intoxication and abuse.
• Matter of Henry CC. v. Antoinette DD., 222 AD3d 1231 (3d Dept 2023), and Matter of James EE. v. Vanessa EE., 228 AD3d 1025 (3d Dept 2024): These decisions ground the appellate standard of review—deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments and fact-finding where supported by a sound and substantial basis. They authorized the appellate court here to affirm the trial court’s rejection of the father’s explanations (e.g., that he purchased but did not drink the beer) and acceptance of the mother’s testimony.
• Matter of Robert C. v. Katlyn D., 230 AD3d 1392 (3d Dept 2024), compare Matter of Kelly CC. v. Zaron BB., 191 AD3d 1101 (3d Dept 2021): Robert C. confirms that domestic violence, proven by a preponderance, must be weighed in the best-interests analysis. Kelly CC., cited in contrast, underscores that where domestic violence is not proven, its weight is limited. Here, the court found the mother’s allegations—coercive-control statements, threats, property damage, intoxication-fueled episodes—were proven and materially affected the best-interests calculus.
• Matter of Matthew L. v. Sierra N., 229 AD3d 866 (3d Dept 2024), lv denied 42 NY3d 907 (2024): Supports outcomes awarding custody to the parent providing stability and limiting the other parent’s access where the record shows risk to the child’s welfare.

Legal Reasoning and Path to Decision

The court navigated three interlocking layers of law: the best-interests standard for initial custody, the heightened threshold for imposing supervised visitation, and the deferential appellate review standard.

• Best interests: The court evaluated the parties’ past performance and current capacities. Key findings included:
  • Father’s fitness deficits: near-daily intoxication; an incident where a young child became physically trapped under him while he was unconscious; inability or unwillingness to take a child for medical care due to his drinking; alcohol-fueled verbal abuse; acts of intimidation (punching a wall near the mother’s head; unwrapping and throwing the children’s Christmas presents).
  • Documentary corroboration: loyalty-account shopping records showing over 4,000 beer containers purchased over roughly six months during litigation, sharply undermining the father’s claimed sobriety and credibility.
  • Mother’s improvements: acknowledgment of depression/anxiety, documented treatment, and professional testimony that she had become independent, stronger, and effective at stress management; capacity to provide a safe, stable environment.
  • Co-parenting conduct: the father’s unilateral school enrollment excluding the mother from records reflected a diminished willingness to foster the children’s relationship with the other parent. While the mother also re-enrolled the child unilaterally later, the court found the father’s safety-related deficits and coercive control carried far more weight.
• Domestic violence in the best-interests analysis: The court held that the mother proved, by a preponderance, a pattern of coercive control and verbal/emotional abuse that occurred in the children’s presence and escalated to physical intimidation. Under Third Department precedent, these dynamics must be weighed in determining best interests, even absent regular physical assaults. The opinion integrates this evidence into the parenting fitness and safety factors, emphasizing the impact on the children’s well-being.
• Supervised visitation: The court applied the presumption favoring a healthy parent-child relationship but found compelling reasons and substantial evidence that unsupervised time would be detrimental. The combination of recent, ongoing alcohol abuse, concrete safety incidents, and domestic violence in the children’s presence crossed the threshold justifying supervision to protect the children’s welfare.
• Appellate deference: The father’s appellate arguments essentially challenged credibility determinations. The Third Department reaffirmed that it would not reweigh testimony where Family Court’s findings rest on a sound and substantial basis. The loyalty-account records and the consistency of the mother’s testimony, along with corroborative professional testimony about her progress, supplied that basis.

Impact and Significance

• Evidentiary innovation in family practice: The opinion tacitly validates the probative value of consumer loyalty-card purchase data to demonstrate ongoing substance abuse in custody disputes. This documentary evidence can significantly corroborate witness testimony and impeach claims of abstinence, potentially influencing both interim relief (e.g., supervised visitation) and final custody determinations.
• Coercive control as domestic violence: The decision reinforces that coercive control and verbal/emotional abuse—especially when children are exposed—count as domestic violence for best-interests purposes, even if physical violence is episodic or primarily manifests as intimidation (property damage, threats). This will inform trial strategies, evidentiary presentations, and judicial findings in future Article 6 proceedings.
• Supervised visitation threshold clarified in practice: The ruling illustrates the type and quantum of proof that satisfies the “compelling reasons and substantial evidence” requirement: documented substance abuse contemporaneous with parenting responsibilities, safety incidents, and credible accounts of abuse affecting the home environment.
• Mental health treatment is not disqualifying: The mother’s candid acknowledgment of depression/anxiety, combined with consistent treatment and positive professional assessments, shows that managed mental health conditions do not preclude success in a best-interests analysis; proactive treatment can be an affirmative factor.
• Appellate preservation matters: The curt dismissal of secondary arguments as unpreserved or barred by law of the case underscores the importance of timely objections, motions, and appeals in Family Court practice.
• Co-parenting conduct in education decisions: Unilateral school enrollment and exclusion of the other parent from access to information can be a negative factor, particularly where it evidences control or gatekeeping. Practitioners should counsel clients to avoid unilateral actions that impair the other parent’s involvement absent exigency or court authorization.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Best interests of the child: The central standard in custody cases. Courts balance multiple factors—including safety, stability, parental fitness, past caregiving performance, and each parent’s willingness to foster the child’s relationship with the other parent—to determine the custodial arrangement that most benefits the child’s overall well-being.
• Supervised visitation: A restriction on parenting time whereby the child’s contact with a parent occurs in the presence of a neutral supervisor. In New York, such a restriction is imposed only when compelling reasons and substantial evidence show that unsupervised time would be detrimental to the child.
• Domestic violence in custody cases: Encompasses not only physical assaults but also patterns of coercive control, threats, intimidation, property damage, and verbal/emotional abuse, especially when perpetrated in the child’s presence. Proven by a preponderance of the evidence, these facts must be incorporated into the best-interests analysis.
• Preponderance of the evidence: The standard of proof applicable to domestic violence findings in custody matters—meaning it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred.
• Sound and substantial basis: The appellate review standard for Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. If the record reasonably supports the trial court’s findings, the Appellate Division will not reweigh evidence or substitute its view of credibility.
• Law of the case: A doctrine that precludes re-litigation of issues already decided in the same case, absent exceptional circumstances. It promotes finality and consistency within a single litigation trajectory.
• Documentary corroboration (e.g., loyalty-card records): Objective records can powerfully corroborate or refute testimony. In family practice, such records can include purchase histories, bank/credit statements, text messages, and digital footprints relevant to parental conduct.

Practice Pointers and Takeaways

• Substance abuse proof: Seek retail loyalty records, bank statements, and similar objective data to corroborate or challenge claims of sobriety. Large-volume, recent purchases during the contested period can be compelling.
• Document safety incidents: Meticulously record dates, times, witnesses, and outcomes of events where intoxication impaired caregiving (missed medical care, unsafe supervision, accidents). Photographs and contemporaneous messages can enhance credibility.
• Domestic violence framing: Present coercive control narratives (threats, intimidation, property damage, financial control) as a pattern affecting the children’s environment; do not rely solely on episodes of physical harm.
• Mental health transparency: Encourage clients to engage in and document treatment. Professional testimony demonstrating stability and progress can be outcome-determinative.
• Co-parenting conduct: Avoid unilateral school or healthcare decisions absent emergencies. Excluding the other parent from access to information is likely to be weighed against the actor in a best-interests analysis.
• Preservation: Make timely objections, seek rulings, and create a clear record on disputed issues to preserve them for appeal.
• Supervised visitation scope: When supervision is sought or imposed, propose concrete conditions and supervisors, and identify milestones for review (e.g., treatment compliance, negative tests) to allow for future reassessment.

Conclusion

Matter of Mackenzie OO. v. Ian NN. reinforces core New York principles while offering practical advancements in evidentiary use for custody litigation. It confirms that:

• Objective consumer purchase data can serve as substantial corroborative evidence of ongoing substance abuse that bears directly on parental fitness and credibility.
• Domestic violence includes coercive control and verbal/emotional abuse with acts of intimidation, and—when proven by a preponderance—must influence the best-interests determination.
• Supervised visitation is warranted where compelling reasons and substantial evidence show that unsupervised access would be detrimental to the children, notwithstanding the baseline presumption favoring a relationship with the noncustodial parent.
• Appellate courts will defer to Family Court’s credibility findings where supported by a sound and substantial record.

As a result, the decision both clarifies evidentiary avenues for practitioners and underscores the judiciary’s focus on child safety and stability where parental substance abuse and coercive control permeate the caregiving environment.