The Facts:
Petitioner and respondent are the natural parents of a 7-year old child, born on 11 October 2002, who has lived continuously with the mother. The parties were never married and the mother is currently married to another. The mother also has a 1-year old daughter, born on 14 December 2008.
A New York Family Lawyer said the mother and father lived together for approximately three to four years before he left the household when the child was approximately three years old.
The Facts:
The subject child was born on 30 October 2000 and was placed in the care and custody of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) in February 2002 as a result of neglect allegations against her mother, the appellant (hereinafter the mother). Sometime in June 2002, the mother also gave birth to a son who is not the subject of this proceeding but was also placed in a separate foster care home soon after his birth.
A New York Family Lawyer said after the commencement of the aforesaid neglect proceeding, ACS placed the subject child with New Alternatives for Children, Inc. (hereinafter NAC), a New York-authorized foster care agency. NAC placed the child in the non-kinship foster home of a foster mother (hereinafter the foster mother).
This is a case where the court granted defendant mother’s motion for relocation to North Carolina with her ten year old daughter alleging that the circumstances have changed.
Because her parents’ marriage had failed even before she was conceived, the subject child has been raised by her mother since birth. The defendant is and has always been a good and devoted mother to the child.
A New York Family Lawyer said the child’s mother had struggled to make ends meet in New York, taking on as many as three jobs at once while attempting to make a home for her child. For most of her life in New York, the child lived in a home consisted of a shared room with her mother in a house owned and occupied by another family. Due to the damage to the house, mother and child were forced to move into a home with the child’s maternal aunt where living conditions were cramped and crowded.
Respondent is the biological mother of the subject child, a six-year-old boy conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003. Respondent and petitioner met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in November 2003, the month before the child’s birth. Respondent repeatedly refused petitioner’s requests to become the child’s second parent by means of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said after the relationship between the petitioner and respondent soured and they separated, respondent allowed petitioner to have supervised visits with the child each week on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday for specified periods of time, as well as daily contact by telephone. In the spring of 2008, however, respondent began scaling back the visits. By early May 2008, she had cut off all communication between petitioner and the child.
Petitioner brought the proceeding against the respondent in Supreme Court by order to show cause. She sought joint legal and physical custody of the child, restoration of access and decision making authority with respect to his upbringing, and appointment of an attorney for the child.
At the hearing, the petitioner acknowledged the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Matter of Alison D., which held that only a child’s biological or adoptive parent has standing to seek visitation against the wishes of a fit custodial parent, but contended that another landmark case, which endorsed a nonbiological or nonadoptive parent’s right to invoke equitable estoppel to secure visitation or custody notwithstanding Alison D.
An appeal involves a custodial action with the request of the mother to relocate her child with her. The parties were married but separated about a year and a half. Consequently, they filed a divorce and it was granted. The provision settling the case granted the mother legal and physical custody of the child. Moreover, the father had a visitation rights every week from Monday at 8:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. The provision allowed relocation within 25-miles from the father’s house in Bronx.
Based on records, the father had a history of irregular employment and is currently not employed. At the time of trial, the mother, who is remarried, cared for her younger child from her second marriage, full time.
After the parties separated, the mother remained in the marital apartment in the Bronx with the child for two years. Consequently, a New York Family Lawyer said she began working as a project administrator in the construction field. She moved with the child and her boyfriend to Connecticut. The mother testified that she always wanted her son to be in a suburban environment. She stated that she was trying to mirror her own childhood and further stated that she had a wonderful suburban upbringing. The mother’s relationship in Connecticut ended when her boyfriend returned to his country. The mother returned to New York with the child and moved into an apartment in Harlem.
Plaintiff father and defendant mother were married in West Point, NewYork. Five years later, they had a daughter. Six months after the child’s birth, the parties separated. The father commenced an action for divorce in NewYork County, where he had moved after the separation.
The NewYork Supreme Court granted a judgment of divorce, incorporating by reference a comprehensive settlement agreement, the terms of which had been negotiated by mother and father in open court, and which survived the judgment. When the judgment was granted, mother and child were living in Las Vegas, Nevada, where they had moved. A New York Family Lawyer said under the settlement agreement, mother had sole legal custody of the child. Father had visitation rights in accordance with a detailed schedule. The settlement agreement provided that “it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties herein is a resident of the State of NewYork, the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.”
Subsequently, the mother and child moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Later that year, in November, father moved for sole the child’s custody in NewYork, claiming that the mother’s relocations were intended to deprive him from having contact with his daughter. Mother responded by denying father’s allegations, and stating in effect that if the court intended to deny the motion, it should exercise jurisdiction, but if the court was inclined to grant the motion, she should be given an opportunity to file a cross motion seeking to dismiss the action because NewYork was an inconvenient forum.
A couple commenced an action for divorce and for child custody of their minor child. At the time of the action was initiated, the couple were living apart for several months. The wife instituted the action in Florida. She filed and received an ex-parte injunction enjoining either party from removing the child from the state of Florida and allowing supervised visits with the child. A New York Family Lawyer said the wife predicated her original petition on the grounds of domestic violence and the husband’s allegedly ordering the wife to take the child and reside with the maternal grandparents in Florida. Her petition in Florida has been revised to include the claims for both spousal and child support and alleging assault, battery and cyber stalking by electronic communication in Florida.
Afterwards, the court conducted a joint hearing to New York state domestic relations law. The wife was present at the courthouse in Florida with her counsel and the husband simultaneously appeared in Kings County where both parties were also represented by New York counsel. At the hearing both counsel conceded that New York was the home state of the infant based upon the fact that the child has not resided in Florida for six (6) months prior to the commencement of the action. The husband has persistently argued that the issues of custody and visitation should be argued at New York Court. Conversely, the wife maintained that New York is an inconvenient forum.
The wife predicates her claim of inconvenient forum from the issue that her husband had a history of domestic violence, he has exercised power over her and that the husband has refused to provide adequate support for the wife and the child, that there was an agreement for the wife to live with her parents in Florida and a concession that the issue of the child would be heard in Florida and same was confirmed in an e-mail from the husband.
A man married a physician in June 1985 in New York. They have one child who was born on July 1990 in New York. In June 1991, the man commenced a divorce proceeding, also in New York, which was settled on the record before the trial court in July 1991.
A New York Family Lawyer said that on December 1992, the parties executed a settlement agreement, the terms of which were incorporated by reference, but not merged into, a subsequent judgment of divorce. The settlement agreement provided that it is expressly understood and agreed that so long as one of the parties is a resident of the State of New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York shall retain personal jurisdiction of the parties, of the child, and of the case, for all purposes.
Earlier in 1992, while the divorce was pending, the woman had moved to Louisiana and had sought, unsuccessfully, to have jurisdiction over the matter transferred to that state. Pursuant to the divorce judgment, the woman was granted sole legal and physical child custody, and the man was granted specified visitation.
This is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.
Case Background
A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. The plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.
The problems that arise when a family is divorced are endless. Not only do the parents separate and create new homes, but the children have to divide their time between two parents. When a divorce is finalized, a visitation schedule is created. A New York Family Lawyer said parents are required to create a visitation schedule and the courts ensure that the parents remain in compliance with the orders of the court. However, life is rarely a stagnant existence. Changes occur in every person’s life that can affect the application of a visitation schedule.
One of the most common changes to affect a parent’s life involves having to move to another state. Whether a person has to relocate for business, or personal reasons, if that person is divorced with children, the visitation schedule will have to be reviewed by the court. In fact, if the parent who is moving to another state is the primary custodial parent, it can even affect the move. A primary custodial parent must apply to the state of New York family court for permission to move with the child. The courts of New York strive to ensure that the best interests of the child or children is the most important issue that must be addressed.
When the non-custodial parent objects to the move, things can get even more complex. In one case that was heard before the New York State Supreme Court of Nassau County on October 26, 1998, a mother was transferred to a different state and applied to the court for permission to take her child with her. A New York Custody Lawyer said her ex-husband objected and countered the motion with one of his own. His motion was to have primary custody of the child transferred to him and a new visitation arrangement drawn up so that the mother could have limited visitation. On January 29, 1998, the mother’s request to move with the child to the state of Florida was denied. The mother had to fight for ten months to have her case heard on appeal. Ten months is a very long time when your job and your ability to keep your child is at stake. Finally in October, the Supreme Court of Nassau County prepared to hear her appeal of the trial court’s decision to deny her request to move with the child to Florida.
New York Family Law Blog