Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In re Mardin M.-I. 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 5754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) is a guardianship case that is also related to seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). SIJS provides a pathway to lawful permanent residency, allowing children to live and work legally in the country. This status offers stability and security, granting access to various social services, educational opportunities, and employment prospects that would otherwise be unavailable to undocumented minors.

Moreover, SIJS shields children from deportation proceedings, offering them protection from removal to potentially dangerous or unstable situations in their home countries. It recognizes the vulnerabilities of immigrant children who may have experienced abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and provides a legal mechanism for them to remain in the U.S. under the care of a guardian.

Additionally, SIJS empowers children to reunite with family members or caregivers who can provide them with a safe and supportive environment. By enabling children to petition for SIJS, they are afforded the opportunity to establish permanent ties with responsible adults who can advocate for their well-being and best interests.

Whenever parents wants to relocate with the children, there is likely going to be objections from the other parent. Custody orders routinely include provisions that prevent one parent from permanently leaving the jurisdiction with the children without the consent of the other parent.  In making a decision whether to permit a parent to relocate with the child, the court will consider what is in the best interests of the child.

In Dunn v Harris 2022 NY Slip Op 50641(U), the mother wished to relocate from New York to Denver, Colorado for a new job.  The father objected. The mother responded by seeking legal custody and permission to relocate to Denver, Colorado.

Background

Generally, custody orders prohibit a parent from relocating with the children without the consent of the other parent, even if the parent is the custodial parent. When a parent wants to relocate with the children, the stage is often set for a custody battle.  In determining this issue, as always, the court will do what is in the best interests of the child.

In Matter of Daniel W v Lauren S the court was asked to determine whether to allow the father to relocate with the children to their hometown despite opposition from the mother. As a result, each party sought sole custody of the children and primary physical residency.

Background

D.E. v S.F. & T.E.

The motion to dismiss for lack of standing filed by the defendants, and dismissal of visitation rights filed by the plaintiff are denied. The plaintiff’s cross motion is granted in part and denied in part.

In February of 2018, the petitioner who lives in Nassau County filed a Visitation Petition in Nassau Family Court seeking visitation rights of her grandson. The matter was transferred to Kings Family Court in March of 2018, because the child lives in Brooklyn with his parents.

Matter of T v C

Decision

Pursuant to the Family Court Act, Article 6, a mother appeals from a Family Court order dated 1/10/18. The order granted the father’s petition for sole physical and legal custody, and awarded the other partial access, but denied her sole custody.

C vs C

This case was filed for divorce and ancillary relief. The defendant appeals a prior judgment dated March 24, 2014. In that decision, the order denied the defendant’s cross-motion which was to use one-third of the child’s time spent in Israel visiting with the paternal grandmother. The prior decision also denied without prejudice the portion of the cross-motion which ordered visitation with the paternal grandmother when she was in the U.S.

This court affirms.

In this case, the petitioner filed against the respondent to whom she is married and has one child. The petitioner received a temporary order for protection against the respondent. This was ordered to direct the respondent to cease from all communications with the petitioner, except those relating to the care of the child. Through various court appearances, the order was extended. The petitioner filed various violation petitions.

The violation petitions were consolidated. The court concluded that she failed to prove a family offense petition, but the court sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final protection order.

The respondent appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. One dissenting justice claimed that the family court lacked jurisdiction for the final order because the family offense petition had been dismissed [147 AD3d 675]. The court certified to this court regarding this issue.

P v. P

2018 NY Slip Op 02791

Decision