Father's Rights

Published on: April 3, 2025

Grandmother’s Right to Seek Custody in New York

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, custody disputes between parents and nonparents—such as grandparents—are common but complex. A parent generally has the superior right to custody of their child, but nonparents, like grandparents, may still petition for custody if they can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist. These circumstances might include abandonment, the unfitness of the parent, or other situations where it is in the child’s best interest to be placed with someone other than the biological parent. New York’s Family Court Act and case law, including decisions like Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543 (1976) and Matter of Suárez v. Williams, 26 N.Y.3d 440 (2015), allow courts to evaluate the child’s best interests in these situations, even when parents are not unfit.

In the case of a grandmother seeking custody, there are several important factors to consider, including the child’s age, the nature of the parent’s involvement, and the best interests of the child.

Case of Rose

Published on: October 25, 2024

Acknowledgement of paternity signed based on mistake of fact. Oscar X.F. v. Ileana R.H., 107 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a paternity case, the courts may sometimes be asked to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity when new information comes to light. These cases can have significant consequences, not only for the parents involved but also for the child. Oscar X.F. v. Ileana R.H., 107 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) highlights the legal standards required to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity and the importance of considering the best interests of the child.

Background Facts

The case involved a petitioner who had signed an acknowledgment of paternity, believing he was the biological father of the child in question. The acknowledgment of paternity was executed in accordance with Family Court Act § 516–a. At the time, the petitioner was under the impression that he was the father because he had engaged in sexual relations with the mother during the relevant period.

Published on: April 8, 2024

Rights of the biological father of a child that was adopted. Jeffrey M. v. Ann B. 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 20209 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Jeffrey M. v. Ann B., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 20209 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2020), a case before the Family Court, Respondents Randall B. and Ann B. sought the dismissal of a Visitation Petition filed by Petitioner Jeffrey M. The court’s decision shed light on the complex dynamics of adoption and visitation rights.

In New York, once an adoption is finalized, the biological parents typically relinquish their parental rights over the child. This includes the right to custody, visitation, and decision-making concerning the child’s welfare. However, under certain circumstances, biological parents may retain limited rights, particularly if outlined in a post-placement contact agreement. These agreements may allow for ongoing communication, exchange of photos, and even supervised visitation, depending on the terms agreed upon by all parties involved.

Nevertheless, such agreements are not legally binding in New York unless they are incorporated into the adoption order. Additionally, biological parents may have the option to challenge the adoption on grounds such as fraud, duress, or coercion, although there are limitations and procedural hurdles to overcome, particularly if there has been a significant passage of time since the adoption was finalized.

Published on: November 23, 2022

Is establishing paternity in the best interests of a child who had been living with a foster family? Wilson D. v. Anne B., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51144 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The long-standing policy in New York has been that parents have the right to have a relationship with their children and that it is generally in the best interests of the child for the courts to give parents and children the opportunity to foster a positive relationship. However, there are circumstances where the court finds that it would be in the best interests of the child to not have a relationship with a parent. In Wilson D. v. Anne B., the court was asked to decide if it would be in the best interests of the child to establish paternity where a child had been living in foster care and a bond had developed between the child and the foster parents.

Background

While incarcerated, the putative father of the child filed a petition for custody. Because paternity had not been established, the court held his petition in abeyance pending the court of a paternity test. Meanwhile the child has been placed in foster care and the foster parents developed a close bond with the child.

Published on: November 21, 2022

Court was asked to intervene when the mother and grandmother limited father’s access to child. Marvin F. v. Jaran H., 73 Misc. 3d 1222, 155 N.Y.S.3d 305 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the court was asked to intervene when the child’s maternal grandmother appeared to influence the amount of parental access the mother gave the father.

Background

The mother and father were not married when they had a child together. The father was very involved in the child’s life during the first few months of the child’s life. He would see the child three or four times a week in the morning prior to going to work, in the evenings and on the weekends. The mother showed that she was committed to helping ensure that the father was involved and understood how to care for the child. Things changed when the mother’s mother moved in with her to help care of the child. The grandmother became the child’s paid babysitter. The father’s access to the child became increasing limited.

Published on: January 20, 2020

Custodial Interference Can Be the Basis for Suspending the Obligation to Pay Child Support – Katz v. Katz, 2008 NY Slip Op 7873 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Katz v. Katz, the Appellate Division considered whether a father’s obligation to pay child support could be suspended because the mother interfered with his visitation.

The general rule is that under New York law a noncustodial parent’s access to a child and his or her obligation to pay child support are separate issues. The court can require a parent to pay child support and also deny the parent visitation. If a custodial parent refuses to allow the noncustodial parent access to the child, the noncustodial parent should petition the court for custody or visitation. If there is a custody or visitation order in place and the custodial parent does not allow the noncustodial parent access to the child as required by the order, then the custodial parent is violating a court order. The aggrieved parent should take up the matter with Family Court. The remedy is not for the noncustodial parent to simply withhold child support. If the custodial parent is willfully interfering with visitation, upon petition the court may suspend or even cancel the noncustodial parent’s obligation to pay child support.

In Katz v. Katz, upon the couple’s divorce, the mother was awarded physical custody of the couple’s children. The father was awarded visitation. The father was also ordered to pay child support in the amount of $10,000 per month. The father petitioned the court to suspend his obligation to pay child support because the mother was not permitting him to have access to the children as required by the custody order. He also requested a recoupment of the child support that he had already paid. In support of his petition the father alleged multiple incidents in which the mother interfered with his parenting time and denied him telephone contact with the children. The mother responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

Published on: December 8, 2019

Visitation Interference May Result in Suspension of Child Support Obligation – Vasquez v. Powell, 111 A.D.3d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the Family Court considered whether interference with visitation was a reason to stop paying child support and whether it would cancel child support arrears. The father was awarded custody of the child and the mother visitation. The mother was also required to pay child support to the father. She complained that the father was not complying with the visitation schedule. She argued that she should not have to pay child support if she was not getting access to the child as outlined in the custody order.

The court takes interference with visitation very seriously. When the court issues a custody order, both parents must follow it. This means that the custodial parent must deliver the child to the non-custodial parent at the time and place agreed upon. Willful failure to do so is illegal. If this happens occasionally, the court will likely only chastise the parent and warn him or her to comply with the order. If it happens repeatedly, the court will view it as willful and take steps to ensure that the order is followed. One remedy may be suspending the obligation of the non-custodial parent to pay child support.

In Vasquez, the mother filed a petition to hold the father in civil contempt for violating an order of visitation. As part of the relief sought, the mother requested that her obligation to pay child support be suspended. She also requested that the court cancel her child support arrears. While the court noted that it has the discretion to suspend child support payments for violations of an order of visitation, it also made it clear that the court would not have the authority to cancel arrearages. It further noted that in this case there was no evidence that the father actively interfered with the mother’s visitation. The evidence showed that at times the child did not want to take advantage of the scheduled visitation, and the father did not force the child.

Published on: April 23, 2016

Social Services Seeks to Terminate Parental Rights of Father

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights of the natural father. The petitioner, Little Flower Children’s Services, appealed from an order of the Family Court, Kings County dated 22 September 1993, which dismissed the petition. The court affirmed the order, without costs or disbursements.

On 4 December 1985, SG, the subject child in this termination of parental rights proceeding was born.

Sometime in November 1987, when SG was less than two years old, the Commissioner of Social Services removed SG from her mother’s care because of her mother’s drug use, and placed the child with her maternal aunt. SG has remained in her maternal aunt’s home since her initial placement over six years ago, and SG’s mother has voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to the child.