Alexis T. v. Vanessa C.-L.

The court properly determined that the child’s best interests warranted denial of respondent’s motion (see Family Ct Act § 532 [a]; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of L. Pamela P. v Frank S., 59 NY2d 1, 5 [1983]). The record shows that respondent has at all times recognized petitioner as the biological father of the child and had sup*437ported and allowed the child to develop a relationship with petitioner. However, a few years after the child’s birth, respondent terminated the child’s access to petitioner due to concerns about petitioner’s lifestyle — concerns that…