Custody

Published on: October 8, 2019

Court Will Suspend Visitation Where It Has Been Detrimental to the Child’s Mental State – Lupo v. Rainsford, 162 A.D.3d 1032 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case a father appealed a decision of the Family Court to suspend his visitation. The original custody order followed the parents’ divorce. The father was granted visitation. The order was later modified requiring that the father’s parental access had to occur in a public place. The mother again petitioned the court to modify the custody order, further restricting the father’s access to the child. The Family Court granted the mother’s petition and suspended the father’s access altogether. The father appealed.

When the Family Court issues a final custody order, it will only change it if the circumstances have significantly changed, as a custody order is issued only after the court has carefully considered substantial testimony and evidence. Often there is testimony from medical professionals. When appropriate the child will testify and give his or her preference. The goal of Family Court is always to facilitate healthy relationships between the child and both parents, and works with both parents to make sure that they each get to spend a significant amount f time with the child. However, each case is different. Ultimately, the child court will take all of the information presented and make a custody decision based on what is in the best interests of the child. In some cases that may mean that it is necessary to modify the order so that the visitation is restricted.

Circumstances that would warrant a change to a custody order include a change in the lifestyle of the household, such as a new job that requires the parent to be absent often. Substance abuse or violence in the household would require a modification as it is not in the best interests of the child to be in a dangerous environment. If a parent experiences physical or mental health problems such that he or she would have difficulties caring for the child or such that the child would be in danger, the court would consider modifying the custody order. Of course, the court will consider the preference of the child, particularly when the child gets older.

Published on: October 8, 2019

Right of Biological Mother to Seek Custody of Children She Surrendered – Beverly L. v. James H. (In re Custody/Visitation Proceeding), 2016 NY Slip Op 26243 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue before the court is whether a parent who adopted out her children had the right to seek custody of them upon learning that the children were being sexually abused by the adoptive father.

The petitioner voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to her three children, 2 daughters and a son. As part of the post-surrender agreement, the mother retained the right to visit with the children, and she did so regularly. The three children were subsequently adopted. A few years after the adoption, Biological Mother found out that the children were not living in a safe environment. One of her daughters was being sexually abused by Adoptive Father. The other daughter was being sexually abused by an unrelated person. The son was being bullied in the adoptive home. In response, Biological Mother sought custody of the children. Adoptive Father admitted that he sexually abused one of the daughters and was in jail. Adoptive Mother filed a motion opposing Biological Mother’s petition, arguing that she had no standing to file for custody. Adoptive Mother also stated that she wanted to keep the children and that she was divorcing the adoptive father. In addition, the attorney representing the children opposed Biological Mother’s petition for custody.

The question before the court is whether a biological mother who previously surrendered her children has standing to bring an Article 6 custody petition against the children’s adoptive parents in a case where the adoptive father has admitted to sexually abusing one of the children.

Published on: December 4, 2018

Mother Appeals Neglect Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of CW

2018 NY Slip Op 06546

October 3, 2018

Published on: June 1, 2018

Attorney Fees Award Reversed by the Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

Greco v Greco

2018 NY Slip Op 03509

May 16, 2018

Published on: May 1, 2018

Matter of FF v FF

by Stephen Bilkis

2018 NY Slip Op. 02781

April 25, 2018

Decision

Published on: April 15, 2018

Matter of B. v J.

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of B. v J.

2018, NY Slip Op. 02148

L.B., Petitioner, Respondent.

Published on: October 9, 2017

Matter of Isiah (Terry C.)

by Stephen Bilkis

Matter of Isiah (Terry C.)

NY Slip Op. 06954

October 4, 2017

Published on: August 10, 2017

EV v RV NY Slip Op 05994

by Stephen Bilkis

E.V. v R.V.

NY Slip Op. 05994

August 2, 2017

Published on: May 5, 2017

In re: Virginia T.F. a Child under 18 years old, Neglected by v. Brittany O’L-F. Ruperto F., Jr., Respondents.

by Stephen Bilkis

No. NN-16543/16

March 10, 2017

Facts of the Case

Published on: April 8, 2017

Fabbricante v Fabbricante

by Stephen Bilkis

2017 Slip Op 01676

Decision

This is an appeal, filed in Queens County, by the plaintiff from an Order to Show Cause. The OSC granted the defendants application to restrain the plaintiff from transferring their minor child from a school in Queens to a school in Nassau County. The court granted a motion to stay enforcement of the TRO, pending a hearing.