It is settled that the essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Matter of Faunteleroy v. Mercado, 5 AD3d 482, 482-483), and a court may direct a change in custody if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification and such a change is in the best interests of the child ( Matter of Mathis v. Parkhurst, 23 AD3d 923, 924; Matter of Dow v. Dow, 306 AD2d 529, 530). Some of the factors to be considered include "the quality of the home environment, parental guidance, financial status and ability to provide for the child as well as the ability to provide for the emotional and intellectual development of the child" ( Matter of Luz Maria V., 23 AD3d 192, 193, lv denied 6 NY3d 710, citing Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 172). Moreover, the burden of establishing a change in circumstances requiring a modification of an existing custody order rests with the petitioner ( Matter of Martin R.G. v. Ofelia G.O., 24 AD3d 305, 305-306; Matter of Millan v. Vargas, 5 AD3d 602).
In this matter, we find troubling respondents' refusal, in the face of petitioner's allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct, to address the issue of the Web site postings in question, for if respondent Londa did, in fact, post these messages, a change in custody may very well be warranted. In addition, given the somewhat contradictory positions espoused by Dr. Prezioso, the child's pediatrician, both in support of, and in opposition to, petitioner's order to show cause, we find clarification of her observations necessary in order to make an informed determination regarding the child's best interests. Finally, we remand the issue of child support to Supreme Court, for as Supreme Court acknowledged in its decision, its ability to review the referee's conclusions was circumscribed by the parties' failure to submit a transcript of the hearing, in violation of CPLR 4320.