Petitioner father sought custody of his two-year-old son. His wife, the mother of the child, had de facto custody of the child since birth, plus physical custody by virtue of a voluntary joint custody agreement entered into after the parties separated. There was testimony that the mother had a troubled childhood, had been married three times and had had three children with three different men. Testimony against the father included evidence of a history of domestic violence not only against the respondent mother but also against his former wife—including an incident where he used a baseball bat to demolish the family's dining room table, apparently witnessed by the subject child. A therapist who performed Court-ordered clinical evaluations on both parties recommended the father for custody, feeling him to be more emotionally stable, and the law guardian concurred in the recommendation.

Held: Despite the recommendations of the two court-appointed advisors, the Court awarded custody to the mother, applying the test of the best interests of the child.

The Court cited in particular the absence of any evidence even remotely establishing that the respondent was an unfit mother, and the great weight normally given to a prior custody agreement between the parties. Finally, the Court cited a recent amendment to the Family Court custody guidelines (laws of 1996, Chapter 85, effective 5/21/96) which mandates courts to consider the impact of domestic violence on the child in custody/visitation proceedings. The Court was concerned that the petitioner had neither given any assurances that such outbursts will not recur, nor has he shown that he has taken any affirmative steps to deal with his propensity toward violence.