New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 17, 2025

Appellate Division required further evidence to justify imputed incomes and recalculated child support. Pilkington v. Pilkington, 185 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellate court reviewed the child support determination made by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The trial court’s judgment imputed income to both parties and set child support obligations accordingly. On appeal, both parties challenged the trial court’s findings regarding imputed income and the resulting child support calculation.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 2003 and have two children, born in 2006 and 2007. After the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, the parties resolved custody and parenting time matters but left financial issues to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court decided these issues based on submissions from the parties in lieu of a full trial.

Published on: January 15, 2025

Court determined that the defendant’s family business interests were marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Ferrante v. Ferrante, 128 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In divorce proceedings, dividing business interests can present unique challenges, particularly when family businesses are involved. In this case, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County addressed the equitable distribution of the defendant’s interests in two family businesses.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 1993, and the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2012. During the marriage, the defendant was involved in three family businesses: Unique Sanitation, U-Need-A-Roll Off, and Paragon Recycling. These businesses were originally founded by the defendant’s father, who transferred ownership interests in various ways over time.

Published on: January 6, 2025

Court changed child’s permanency goal from reunification with mother to adoption due to safety concerns. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Shay S. P. (In re Peter T.), 173 A.D.3d 1043, (N.Y. App. Div. 2019),

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court decisions can significantly impact families, particularly when they involve decisions about a child’s future care. A permanency goal in New York refers to a plan established during family court proceedings to determine the long-term living arrangement for a child in foster care. Goals can include reunification with parents, adoption, placement with relatives, or another planned permanent living arrangement. The goal is set based on the child’s best interests, safety, and well-being. It provides a framework for the child’s future, ensuring stability and security. Permanency planning is important because it seeks to minimize the time a child spends in temporary care, promoting continuity and reducing the potential emotional and developmental impact of prolonged uncertainty.

This case involved a mother who appealed a Family Court decision to change the permanency goal for her child from reunification to placement for adoption. The court considered the child’s best interests, the mother’s progress with services, and the risks associated with returning the child to her custody.

Background Facts

Published on: December 30, 2024

Wife contested the termination of spousal support that had been awarded as part of a separation agreement. King v. King, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1209 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the court had to determine how to distribute marital property and whether to order spousal support. A complicating factor was that although the couple had been married for over 30 years, during most of that time they were separated.

Background Facts

The couple in this case were married in 1977, but separated in 1989. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $550 biweekly support payments. Over time, these support arrangements underwent adjustments. In 2011, the husband initiated divorce proceedings, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as grounds.

Published on: December 24, 2024

Father’s abandonment of child resulted in being denied custody. Nicole L. v. David M., 195 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021

by Stephen Bilkis

In Nicole L. v. David M., 195 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021, a case of guardianship of a child after the mother’s passing, the Family Court of Columbia County faced a complex situation involving multiple petitions from interested parties. The court’s decision hinged on determining the best interests of the child and addressing claims of abandonment and extraordinary circumstances.

While New York courts favor parents having custody of their children, for a variety of reasons, parents can be denied custody. One reason is abandonment. Abandonment occurs when a parent demonstrates a clear intent to relinquish their parental rights and obligations, often through a pattern of conduct that involves a lack of contact, support, or involvement in the child’s life.

The New York courts recognize abandonment as a serious issue that can detrimentally affect a child’s well-being. According to Social Services Law § 384-b(5)(a) and Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a), a parent may be deemed to have abandoned their child if they fail to visit or communicate with the child, demonstrating a disregard for their parental responsibilities.

Published on: December 23, 2024

Maternal grandmother found to have neglected children under Family Court Act. In re Jonah B., 85 N.Y.S.3d 597, (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10 to determine whether the maternal grandmother of three children, Talia, Jonah, and Adele, was legally responsible for their care and whether she neglected them. In April 2014, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated proceedings against the parents and the maternal grandmother, alleging abuse and neglect of Talia and derivative abuse and neglect of Jonah. After Adele’s birth in February 2015, ACS brought a third proceeding alleging that Adele was derivatively abused and neglected. The allegations centered on the maternal grandmother’s role in caring for the children and her failure to protect them.

The maternal grandmother had a substantial presence in the household. She visited daily, stayed overnight two to three times per week, and provided regular care for Talia, including feeding, diaper changes, bathing, and supervising her while the mother rested or performed household tasks. Despite these responsibilities, the grandmother contested that she was not a person legally responsible for the children and denied the allegations of neglect.

Question Before the Court

Published on: December 19, 2024

Court required plaintiff to pay 100% of specific marital debts, denying requested credits. Bari v. Bari, 161 N.Y.S.3d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute over the allocation of marital debt during divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, addressed the plaintiff’s responsibility for specific debts and denied his requests for credits on certain payments. The plaintiff appealed, challenging these decisions. The appellate court reviewed the case and made modifications to the trial court’s judgment.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1997 and had three children. Throughout the marriage, the plaintiff served as the primary earner, managing most of the family’s financial obligations, while the defendant focused on homemaking and childcare.

Published on: December 18, 2024

Grandparent seeks custody in an interstate case. Peggy RR. v. Jenell RR. 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23252 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Peggy RR. v. Jenell RR. 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23252 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023) is a complex child custody case. Not only does it involve a grandparent seeking access to her grandchild, it also has interstate elements.

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is a statutory agreement among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that governs the placement of children across state lines. It was created to ensure that children placed out of their home state for foster care or adoption receive the same protections and services that would be available if they remained in their home state. Additionally, the ICPC ensures that the placement is in the best interests of the child and is safe and suitable before it is finalized.

Background Facts

Published on: December 17, 2024

Appellate Division ordered a hearing to resolve custody disputes and parental access modifications. Trazzera v. Trazzera, 158 N.Y.S.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In custody disputes, courts prioritize the child’s best interests, considering circumstances that may necessitate modifications to prior agreements. This case addresses a post-divorce dispute where both parents sought modifications to their custody and parental access arrangements. The Supreme Court initially ruled without a hearing, but the appellate court reversed and ordered a hearing to address unresolved issues.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant, parents of one child, divorced in 2019, incorporating a stipulation of settlement into the judgment of divorce. The agreement granted joint legal custody, joint decision-making authority, and residential custody to the defendant, with parental access for the plaintiff.

Published on: December 17, 2024

Appellate Division upheld equitable distribution awarding defendant one-third value of marital jewelry business. Kamm v. Kamm, 120 N.Y.S.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The equitable distribution of marital property and the award of maintenance are central issues in many divorce cases. A case from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, involving a long-term marriage and disputes over the division of a jewelry business and the awarding of maintenance, provides a clear illustration of these issues.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1984 and had two children who were emancipated by the time of the trial. Early in the marriage, the plaintiff sold the parties’ townhouse and the defendant’s engagement ring to open a jewelry business. This business became the family’s primary source of income. The defendant left her job as a credit investigator to focus on homemaking and raising the children.