Custody

Published on: June 26, 2024

Court modified the order for supervised visitation for practical reasons. D.T. v. C.T. 215 A.D.3d 1232 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Background Facts

In July 2021, the Family Court of Onondaga County awarded the petitioner, the father, sole legal and primary physical custody of the children involved. Additionally, it provided the mother with supervised visitation rights, stipulating that the specifics of these visitations be mutually agreed upon by both parents. This decision was subsequently appealed by the mother, who contested several aspects of the ruling.

The mother’s appeal focused on issues relate to the process of service of the notice of appeal, the admission of certain evidence, and the terms of her visitation rights. Particularly contentious were the admission of text message screenshots between the mother and the children, and a recorded conversation, which she argued contained inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, the mother challenged the representation by the attorney for the children (AFC), claiming an improper substitution of judgment regarding the children’s wishes, which she believed conflicted with their best interests

Published on: June 10, 2024

Mother challenges court awarding father sole custody. Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) is an appeal from a an order issues in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding. A Family Court Act Article 6 proceeding refers to cases handled under Article 6 of the New York Family Court Act, which covers matters related to the custody, guardianship, and visitation of children.

These proceedings determine who will be legally responsible for a child’s care, who will make major decisions about the child’s life, and how visitation with a non-custodial parent will be handled. Article 6 provides the legal framework for addressing these issues, focusing on the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in any decision made by the court. This includes evaluating factors such as the stability of each parent, their ability to care for the child, the child’s wishes (depending on their age and maturity), and any history of abuse or neglect. These proceedings are necessary for establishing a legal arrangement that supports the child’s welfare and the rights of both parents.

In Allison v. Seeley-Sick, the order, dated August 2019, encompassed various modifications sought by the petitioner father, ultimately granting him sole custody of the children with supervised visitation for the mother. The ensuing legal debate revolved around the mother’s challenge to this decision, alleging, among other things, an abuse of discretion and failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying the modification.

Published on: June 3, 2024

Whether New York possesses initial child custody jurisdiction, considering the children’s residency outside the state. Matter of E.P. v B.S. 2023 NY Slip Op 23318

by Stephen Bilkis

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a set of laws enacted in all 50 states of the United States, including New York, to provide a legal framework for determining which state has jurisdiction over child custody matters. The primary aim of the UCCJEA is to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure that custody decisions are made in the best interests of the child.

In New York, the UCCJEA is codified under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §§ 75-a to 77-b. These provisions outline the rules and procedures for determining jurisdiction in cases involving child custody, visitation, and relocation across state lines.

One of the key principles of the UCCJEA is the concept of “home state” jurisdiction. Under DRL § 75-a(7), the “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent or guardian for at least six consecutive months prior to the commencement of a custody proceeding. This provision ensures that the state with the closest connection to the child is given priority in deciding custody matters.

Published on: May 22, 2024

Requirement of supervised visitation challenged by mother. Thompson v. Thompson, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the mother challenged the father being awarded sole custody and the requirement of her visitation being supervised.

Background Facts

In July 2021, the Family Court of Onondaga County awarded the petitioner, the father, sole legal and primary physical custody of the children involved. Additionally, it provided the mother with supervised visitation rights, stipulating that the specifics of these visitations be mutually agreed upon by both parents. This decision was subsequently appealed by the mother, who contested several aspects of the ruling.

Published on: May 6, 2024

When the parents had a contentious relationship, the court had to determine the appropriate custody arrangement. a Child Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act SB v. AS, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50121 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The court’s primary aim in custody disputes is to ensure the well-being and best interests of the child. One way it seeks to achieve this is by favoring joint custody arrangements whenever possible. Joint custody allows both parents to remain actively involved in the child’s life, providing them with emotional support, guidance, and stability from both maternal and paternal figures. This arrangement can promote a sense of security and continuity for the child, as they maintain regular contact and relationships with both parents.

Moreover, joint custody acknowledges the importance of fostering a healthy co-parenting dynamic. When parents are amicable and able to cooperate effectively, joint custody can minimize conflict and reduce the negative impact of divorce or separation on the child. It encourages parents to communicate openly, make decisions together, and prioritize the child’s needs above personal differences or disputes.

However, despite the court’s preference for joint custody, there are circumstances where this arrangement may not be feasible or in the child’s best interests. When parents exhibit hostility or antagonism towards each other, it can create a toxic environment that adversely affects the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. In such cases, joint custody may exacerbate conflict and instability, leading to further distress for the child.

Published on: April 1, 2024

Whether a father with a history of domestic violence should be awarded custody. Scott v. Thompson 166 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Scott v. Thompson, 166 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), the custody dispute included allegations of domestic abuse. In child custody determinations, New York courts always prioritize the best interest of the child. When allegations of domestic violence arise, courts must evaluate their impact on the child’s well-being and safety. Courts examine whether either parent has engaged in acts of domestic violence, particularly in the presence of the child. This assessment is vital in determining the child’s best interests and the appropriate custody arrangement. The safety and welfare of the child take precedence, and any history of violence or abuse can influence the parent’s fitness to provide a nurturing and secure environment.

The frequency, severity, and nature of the domestic violence incidents are weighed, considering the potential risk they pose to the child’s physical and emotional health. Moreover, courts consider the protective measures taken by the victimized parent to safeguard themselves and the child from further harm.

By thoroughly examining the circumstances surrounding the domestic violence allegations, courts aim to ensure the child’s safety and well-being while promoting a stable and nurturing environment. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240(1)(a), in any action or proceeding concerning custody or parental access where domestic violence is alleged, “the court must consider” the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child along with all the other relevant factors. Ultimately, the goal is to protect the child from harm and promote their best interests, which may involve awarding custody to the parent who can provide a safe and stable environment free from violence and abuse.

Published on: March 25, 2024

Court determined that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to be awarded sole custody. Olea v. Diaz 194 A.D.3d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In determining custody arrangements in New York, several factors are considered. One important factor is the child’s established environment. This includes where the child currently lives and attends school, as well as their social connections and daily routines. Courts aim to minimize disruption to the child’s life by prioritizing continuity and stability.

Another factor is parental fitness. This involves assessing each parent’s ability to care for the child’s overall well-being. Factors such as parenting skills, mental and physical health, and the ability to provide a safe and nurturing environment are taken into account. Courts also consider the past behavior and performance of each parent in fulfilling their parental responsibilities.

The child’s expressed preferences also play a role in custody determinations. While the child’s desires are considered, they are not determinative. Instead, courts weigh the child’s preferences against other factors, such as their age, maturity, and the reasons behind their preferences. Older children may have more weight given to their preferences, especially if they are able to articulate reasoned opinions.

Published on: February 19, 2024

Determining the proper jurisdiction in a divorce and child custody dispute where parties have ties t New York and the United Kingdom. William L. v. Therese L. 66 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Latin term meaning “forum not convenient,” allows a court to decline jurisdiction over a case if another forum would be more appropriate for the resolution of the dispute. In New York, this doctrine applies to various legal matters, including divorce and child custody disputes, when issues of jurisdiction and forum selection arise.

In divorce and child custody cases, forum non conveniens may come into play when one party argues that another jurisdiction would be more suitable for resolving the dispute. Factors considered by the court include the parties’ residences, the child’s welfare, the location of evidence, financial circumstances, and court familiarity with the case.

For example, if a couple has ties to both New York and another country, and the child primarily resides outside New York, a court may find that the other jurisdiction is more appropriate for adjudicating custody matters. Similarly, if evidence and witnesses are predominantly located in another jurisdiction, it may be more convenient for the case to be heard there.

Published on: February 14, 2024

Where a couple adopted children, the court determined that they would share legal custody. N.K. v. S.R., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23344 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In custody cases, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation or the children’s adoption status, the paramount concern remains the well-being and best interests of the children involved. While this particular case involves a same-sex couple and adopted children, the fundamental principles guiding the court’s decision-making process are universal. The court must carefully consider various factors, including the children’s emotional and physical health, their relationship with each parent, stability, and the ability of each parent to provide a nurturing and supportive environment. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that the children are placed in a living arrangement that promotes their overall welfare and development.

Background Facts

S.R. and N.K. married in 2007. The children, SC1 and SC2, are S.R.’s cousin’s biological children, placed in their care as kinship foster parents. They began fostering SC1 in 2009 and SC2 in 2010 in Binghamton, New York.

Published on: January 29, 2024

Appellate Division upholds custody to the mother, orders hearing for visitation by incarcerated father. Bell v. Mays, 127 A.D.3d 1179 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York child custody cases, including those involving an incarcerated parent, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. The court considers factors such as the child’s safety, well-being, and overall welfare in determining custody arrangements, aiming to make decisions in the child’s best interests.

Background Facts

In 2002 the Family Court issued an order granting custody to the mother. An incident in December 2002 involved domestic violence, leading to criminal charges and a lengthy prison sentence for the father. The children, unfortunate witnesses to this event, experienced a severed paternal relationship.