New York Family Law Blog

Published on: March 6, 2024

Olga L.G.M. v. Santos T.F. 164 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Olga L.G.M. v. Santos T.F., 164 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), a case concerning a guardianship petition under Family Court Act article 6, a mother appealed from an order dismissing her petition without a hearing. The order was issued by the Family Court of Nassau County, prompting the mother to challenge it.

A New York guardianship petition under Family Court Act article 6 is a legal action filed in the Family Court to request the appointment of a guardian for a minor child. This petition is typically filed by a parent, relative, or other interested party seeking to obtain legal authority to make decisions regarding the child’s welfare and affairs.

Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act, the court has the authority to appoint a guardian for a child if it is deemed to be in the child’s best interests. Guardianship may be sought for various reasons, including when a parent is unable to care for the child due to incapacity, incarceration, or other circumstances.

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: February 12, 2024

New York Family Court found insufficient evidence to extend the final order of protection. C.K. v. J.D., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50029 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, obtaining a family court order of protection involves specific requirements for both temporary and final orders. For a temporary order, known as an ex parte order, the petitioner must demonstrate to the court that they have been subjected to or are in immediate danger of domestic violence or harassment by the respondent. This can be achieved through sworn testimony or evidence provided to the court.

Once a temporary order is granted, a final order of protection can be sought through a formal court hearing or by mutual agreement of the parties. To obtain a final order, the petitioner must present evidence of the alleged family offense, such as testimony, documents, or other supporting evidence. The respondent has the opportunity to present a defense and contest the allegations during the hearing.

For both temporary and final orders, the court will consider factors such as the nature of the relationship between the parties, any history of violence or harassment, and the current circumstances surrounding the request for protection. The court will issue the order if it determines that there is a sufficient basis to warrant protection for the petitioner.

Published on: February 7, 2024

Court considered the right of the ACS supervise a non-offending parent. In re Danna T., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 24008 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) plays a crucial role in safeguarding children who are victims of abuse or neglect by their parents or caregivers. ACS is tasked with investigating reports of child maltreatment and ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. When allegations of abuse or neglect arise, ACS conducts thorough investigations to assess the risk to the child and determine the appropriate course of action.

ACS works closely with law enforcement, medical professionals, and other relevant agencies to gather evidence and make informed decisions regarding child welfare. If ACS determines that a child is in imminent danger, they have the authority to intervene and remove the child from the home to ensure their safety. In cases where removal is necessary, ACS provides temporary placement for the child and works to establish a plan for their long-term care.

Furthermore, ACS offers various supportive services to families in need, including counseling, parenting classes, and substance abuse treatment, with the goal of reunifying families whenever possible. However, ACS prioritizes the safety and well-being of the child above all else, and if reunification is not feasible or safe, they pursue alternative permanent placement options, such as adoption or guardianship. Through its efforts, ACS strives to protect and advocate for the rights of children who have experienced abuse or neglect.

Published on: February 7, 2024

Whether the mother’s conduct related to the children’s education and mental health issues met the legal criteria for neglect. In re Madison G., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1499 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves an appeal from an amended order of fact-finding and disposition by the Family Court, Kings County, regarding allegations of neglect against the mother of two children, India G. and Madison G. The order, issued in November 2018, placed the mother under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) for three months. The appeal questions the finding of neglect against the mother and the subsequent placement under ACS supervision.

The ACS is the New York City agency responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children and families within the city. It operates under the jurisdiction of the New York City government and is tasked with various responsibilities related to child protection, foster care, adoption services, and juvenile justice.

ACS works to ensure that children in New York City are safe from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. It investigates reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, provides services to families in need of support, and, when necessary, places children in foster care or other out-of-home placements to ensure their safety and well-being.

Published on: February 5, 2024

Court denied grandmother visitation because she lacked relationship with the child. E.O. v. J.K., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50101 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case of In re Danna T., the Suffolk County Family Court deliberated over a petition filed by E.O., the maternal grandmother of G.D., seeking visitation rights. The petition stemmed from E.O.’s desire to reconnect with her granddaughter, G.D., who she had not seen in several years. The court proceedings, which spanned multiple days, involved testimonies from both E.O. and the child’s mother, J.K.

Background Facts

E.O. filed the petition in February 2022, citing her standing as the grandmother of G.D. due to the death of the child’s father. The court heard conflicting testimonies regarding the nature of E.O.’s relationship with G.D. and the circumstances surrounding her absence from the child’s life. E.O. alleged that G.D.’s mother, J.K., had cut off contact between them, while J.K. argued that E.O. had made minimal effort to maintain a relationship with the child.

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.

Published on: January 22, 2024

Appellate Division considered whether supervised visitation aligned with the children’s best interests. Seeback v. Seeback, 14 N.Y.S.3d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Seeback v. Seeback, 14 N.Y.S.3d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015), the Appellate Division considered whether supervised visitation was appropriate. Supervised visitation in New York is a structured arrangement facilitating parent-child interaction under the watchful eye of a designated supervisor. This setting ensures the safety and well-being of the child during visits, especially in circumstances where concerns about the noncustodial parent’s behavior or the child’s welfare exist. The supervisor, often a trained professional or a court-approved individual, oversees the visitation to prevent potential risks or conflicts. The goal is to provide a secure environment that allows the noncustodial parent to maintain a relationship with the child while addressing any underlying issues or concerns.

Supervised visitation may be court-ordered based on various factors such as a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or other behaviors that could pose a risk to the child. The court determines the terms and conditions of the supervised visits, including the duration, location, and frequency. This arrangement prioritizes the child’s safety and best interests, allowing them to maintain contact with the noncustodial parent in a controlled and monitored setting. The ultimate aim is to support the child’s emotional well-being and ensure a positive and secure environment during the visitation process.

Background Facts

Published on: January 15, 2024

Court determined that support agreement did not cover food and shelter expenses. Horne v. Horne, 22 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1968)

by Stephen Bilkis

A separation agreement in New York is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions agreed upon by spouses when they decide to live apart. It addresses matters such as division of assets, spousal support, child custody, and visitation. This contractual agreement allows couples to formalize their separation without pursuing immediate divorce proceedings. Once signed, it serves as a binding contract that both parties must adhere to. The separation agreement provides a structured framework for resolving key issues, facilitating a smoother separation process while minimizing potential conflicts and uncertainties.

In Horne v. Horne, a dispute developed over how to interpret the terms of the child support provisions of their separation agreement.

Background Facts