New York Family Law Blog

Published on: September 3, 2025

Relocation Request in Custody Case. Matter of Emily F. v. Victor P., 2024 NY Slip Op 24189

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 2022, Emily F. filed a petition in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, seeking to modify a 2017 final order of custody and visitation. She requested permission to relocate her child from New York to North Carolina over the objection of the father, Victor P. The case came before the court on remittal from the Appellate Division for a new fact-finding hearing. The court considered testimony, documentary evidence, and the relocation standard in New York, which requires the moving parent to show that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.

Background Facts
Emily F. and Victor P. were previously married and lived in the Bronx between 2013 and 2016. They separated in 2016 after incidents of domestic violence. The 2017 custody order, issued on consent, gave the mother sole legal and physical custody and provided the father with parenting time. The mother lost her job at New York University in 2020 due to budget cuts and searched extensively for employment in New York, applying for over 65 positions. When she was unable to find work, she began looking in North Carolina, where she had family. In February 2022, she received an offer from Duke University and relocated with the child in June 2022.

Since the move, the child has been living in a gated community, performing well in school, participating in tutoring and athletic activities, and maintaining friendships. The father’s parenting time has been inconsistent, with missed opportunities during several school breaks and holidays. The mother offered to pay travel costs and proposed a schedule that included substantial time in New York and North Carolina. The child expressed a preference to remain in North Carolina while continuing to spend time with the father. The father did not testify or present evidence during the hearing.

Published on: August 20, 2025

Father Granted Relocation to South Carolina. Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05348

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father’s request to relocate with his children from New York to South Carolina. The case examined the legal standard for relocation, the factors courts must weigh when a custodial parent seeks to move, and how evidence on financial stability, educational needs, and family support can influence the court’s determination. It also addressed the impact of relocation on the noncustodial parent’s access to the children and how parenting schedules can be adjusted to preserve relationships.

Background Facts
The parents, who were never married, had two children, born in 2012 and 2016. In April 2017, they entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement granting the father sole legal and residential custody. The mother was given supervised parental access.

The father and children lived in a house in New York owned by the father’s grandmother. In November 2021, the father filed a petition to modify the 2017 stipulation to allow him to relocate with the children to South Carolina. He testified that he could no longer continue renting his grandmother’s house. The mother contributed $25 per month in child support for both children.

Published on: August 13, 2025

Failure to Provide Notice Before Withdrawing Counsel Requires Reversal. Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00215

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), the Appellate Division, Third Department, considered whether the Family Court of Schenectady County erred in proceeding with a neglect fact-finding hearing without the mother or her attorney present. The case involved important questions about a parent’s right to counsel in Family Court Act article 10 neglect proceedings, and the procedures that must be followed when assigned counsel seeks to withdraw. The decision also addressed how the failure to give proper notice of withdrawal can affect the validity of a neglect finding.

Background Facts

The mother and father were unmarried parents of four children born between 2003 and 2013. In July 2020, the Schenectady County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report concerning the children. The children were removed from the parents’ care and placed in DSS custody. DSS filed separate neglect petitions against each parent under Family Court Act article 10.

Published on: August 11, 2025

Mother’s Violation Petition Denied; Father’s Relocation to Florida Granted. Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., the Family Court of Tompkins County addressed two petitions involving custody and parenting time for a child born in 2020. The mother filed a violation petition alleging that the father withheld court-ordered supervised parenting time. The father filed a relocation petition seeking to move with the child to Florida. This case involved application of the legal standard for relocation under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), which requires the moving parent to show that relocation is in the child’s best interests. It also highlights the consequences for withholding court-ordered supervised parenting time, which can include findings of contempt, fines, makeup time, and possible changes to custody.

Background Facts

In September 2022, the parents consented to an order granting the father sole custody and placement of the child, with supervised parenting time for the mother. Parenting time was to be arranged through the parties’ attorneys.

Published on: August 7, 2025

Mother’s Child Support Agreement Vacated Due to Mutual Mistake. Matter of Michelle B. v. Thomas Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 50020(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case Matter of Michelle B. v. Thomas Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 50020(U), the Family Court of Kings County reviewed objections filed by a mother challenging a Support Magistrate’s refusal to vacate an agreement she had made during a child support enforcement proceeding. The issue involved a stipulation in which the mother agreed to accept a future pension payment in exchange for waiving more than $140,000 in child support arrears.

Background Facts

Michelle B. and Thomas Y. are the parents of a child born out of wedlock in 1992. In 2011, a support order was issued directing the father to pay child support through the Support Collection Unit (SCU). The father was previously found in willful violation of the order and served a six-month jail sentence in 2019. At that time, arrears were converted into a judgment and the father began paying $23 bi-weekly under a SCU payment plan.

Published on: August 7, 2025

Subpoena Challenge Dismissed as Moot After Child Support Case Ends. Matter of Abidi v. Antohi, 58 A.D.3d 726 (2d Dep’t 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child support case, business records may need to be produced to determine a parent’s true income, especially if they are self-employed or own a business. Unlike regular wage earners, business owners may have control over how income is reported. Financial statements, tax returns, and expense records can help the court assess actual earnings and verify whether income is being hidden or underreported. Accurate income information is necessary to calculate a fair support amount. Records from a spouse or partner’s business may also be relevant if household expenses are being shared or subsidized by that income.

In Matter of Abidi v. Antohi, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a nonparty husband could appeal a Family Court order compelling him to produce business records in a child support proceeding involving his wife and her former partner.

Background Facts

Published on: August 7, 2025

Support Violation Order Vacated Due to Lack of Jurisdiction. Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, 172 A.D.3d 1475 (3d Dep’t 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, the Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed whether a family court in New York had the legal authority to confirm a support violation order that was never initiated by a proper petition. The court found that, without a formal violation petition filed under Family Court Act § 453, the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the support violation order against the father was vacated.

Background Facts

The mother and father divorced in Florida in 2014. As part of the divorce judgment, the father was required to pay $84 per month in child support. The father later moved to New York. In 2016, the Florida child support agency requested that the New York Family Court register the support order for enforcement purposes under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Support Magistrate in New York registered the order in November 2016 and determined that the father owed arrears.

Published on: August 6, 2025

Father’s Custody Modification Petition Revived After Relocation Dispute. Matter of Shayne FF. v. Julie GG., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05767

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Shayne FF. v. Julie GG., the Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed a Family Court order that dismissed a father’s petitions to modify an existing custody and visitation arrangement. The case raised issues about what a parent must prove to change a prior custody order, how the court should evaluate alleged changes in a child’s needs over time, and the importance of considering transportation arrangements and holiday parenting time when circumstances shift. It also examined how a court should interpret relocation clauses in prior orders and the correct legal standard for deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of a petitioner’s case.

Background Facts
The parents had one child, born in 2009. In 2012, they entered a consent order granting the mother sole legal custody and the father parenting time every other weekend, along with holiday time “as agreed between the parties.” The order prohibited the mother from moving more than 50 miles from her then-current home without the father’s consent or a court order.

In May 2020, the father filed a petition to modify custody, alleging that the mother had moved to another county in violation of the order and that her move increased the travel time for exchanges. He also claimed she had not agreed to holiday parenting time. The mother sought dismissal, and the father later filed an amended petition in March 2021.

Published on: August 4, 2025

Father Granted Permission to Relocate with Children to South Carolina. Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05348

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father’s request to relocate with his children from New York to South Carolina. The case addressed the legal standard for relocation, the factors courts must consider when a custodial parent seeks to move with children, and how the evidence presented can affect the court’s determination. It also involved questions about the economic, educational, and family support implications of relocation, as well as how parental access schedules can be adapted to maintain the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the children.

Background Facts
The parents, who were never married, had two children, born in 2012 and 2016. In April 2017, they entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement that gave the father sole legal and residential custody of the children. The stipulation provided the mother with supervised parental access.

The father and children lived in a home in New York that belonged to the father’s grandmother. In November 2021, the father filed a petition to modify the 2017 stipulation to allow him to relocate with the children to South Carolina. He testified that he could no longer continue renting his grandmother’s house and that the mother contributed only $25 per month in child support for both children.

Published on: August 2, 2025

Mother Found in Contempt for Withholding Children from Court-Ordered Visitation. Matter of S.S. v. M.S., 2022 NY Slip Op 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of S.S. v. M.S., the Family Court of New York County addressed a dispute over compliance with court-ordered parenting time. The father, M.S., filed a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against the mother, S.S., for failing to follow a visitation schedule.

Background Facts

S.S. and M.S. are the parents of four children born in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2021. Starting in December 2021, the parties engaged in extensive litigation involving custody, visitation, and family offense petitions. A temporary order of protection was initially issued in favor of the father and the children. This was later modified to allow the mother parenting time.