New York Family Law Blog

Published on: September 20, 2023

Father established a pattern of the mother violating the prior custody order. Dickes v. Johnston, 182 N.Y.S.3d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Dickes v. Johnston, decided in 2023, revolves around a custody dispute between the respondent-petitioner mother and petitioner-respondent father. The Family Court, in response to the father’s supplemental petition, modified the existing custody order to increase his parenting time with the child.

In New York, modifying a custody arrangement requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests. Courts prioritize stability and consider factors like parental fitness, cooperation, and adherence to existing orders. The petitioner must show the change warrants a review in the child’s best interests. The court independently assesses the record, ensuring any modification aligns with the child’s welfare and is not punitive. This standard emphasizes the need for a significant shift in circumstances to justify altering established custody arrangements.

Note that n this case, the child is represented by an AFC- Attorney for a the Child. An Attorney for the Child (AFC) is an attorney appointed by the court to represent the child’s legal interests in custody and visitation cases. The AFC serves as the child’s advocate, offering an independent voice to express the child’s wishes and preferences. This role is crucial in situations where the child’s interests might conflict with those of the parents or when there are complex issues involved. The AFC investigates the case, interviews the child, and presents the child’s viewpoint in court, helping ensure that the child’s well-being is a central consideration in legal proceedings.

Published on: September 18, 2023

Court declined to modify custody arrangement. Alanna v. Duncan, 204 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Alanna v. Duncan, upon divorcing, the couple agreed upon custody. However, the mother changed her mind and sought to modify the custody arrangement.

In New York, courts may entertain requests to modify custody agreements when there is a substantial change in circumstances that affects the well-being of the child. This could encompass alterations in a parent’s living situation, health, or financial stability. Another factor that might prompt a modification is a parent’s plan to relocate a considerable distance, with the court evaluating how such a move may impact the child’s relationship with both parents and overall stability. The child’s expressed preference, depending on their age and maturity, may also be considered, with the court ultimately prioritizing their best interests. Consistent violations of the existing custody order by one parent or concerns about parental fitness, such as substance abuse or neglect, can lead the court to reevaluate the custody arrangement. In all cases, the paramount consideration is the well-being of the child. Parents seeking modification should be prepared to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances, and the court may encourage negotiation or mediation to reach a new agreement that aligns with the child’s best interests. Understanding these factors is crucial for parents navigating the complexities of family law in New York.

Background

Published on: September 13, 2023

Court modified custody order based on one parent being better able to handle child. Matter of Ross v. Trento, 275 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

by Stephen Bilkis

There are many reasons that parents may petition the court for a modification of a custody order. In the case of Matter of Ross v. Trento, the petitioner requested a modification because the child was more well-behaved at her house than at the father’s house.

In New York, modifying a custody arrangement is guided d by the principle that such changes should only occur upon a demonstrated change in circumstances that necessitates the modification to ensure the continued best interests of the child. The court assesses whether the proposed modification serves the child’s welfare more effectively than the existing arrangement. Key considerations include factors such as the child’s age, adjustment to their current environment, and the stability of both parents’ households. The party seeking modification bears the responsibility of presenting a substantial and material change in circumstances, emphasizing the court’s commitment to maintaining stability in the child’s life while prioritizing their overall well-being. This standard reflects the judiciary’s dedication to preserving the child’s best interests in custody decisions.

Background

Published on: September 11, 2023

Matter of Rose v. Eveland, 241 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation remains generally intact even during incarceration. The presumption is that maintaining contact with the noncustodial parent is in the child’s best interest. While incarceration alone doesn’t render visitation inappropriate, the court considers the circumstances to ensure the child’s welfare. The denial of visitation is viewed as a drastic measure, warranted only if substantial evidence indicates potential harm to the child. Courts may implement supervised visitation in appropriate settings, balancing parental rights with the child’s well-being, reinforcing the significance of maintaining meaningful connections despite parental incarceration.

In the case of Matter of Rose v. Eveland, the court addressed the complex issue of a noncustodial parent’s right to visitation while incarcerated. The father, the petitioner, sought regular visitation with his son, challenging the Family Court’s decision that deemed such visits unnecessary for the child’s well-being.

In New York, granting visitation to incarcerated parents involves a careful evaluation of the child’s best interests and the incarcerated parent’s circumstances. Generally, it is presumed to be in the child’s best interest to have visitation with their noncustodial parent, even if the parent is incarcerated. The court considers factors such as the child’s relationship with the parent, the potential impact on the child’s well-being, and the incarcerated parent’s ability to maintain a meaningful connection despite the limitations of incarceration. The denial of visitation is viewed as a drastic measure, only warranted if substantial evidence indicates it would harm the child. The court aims to balance the rights of the incarcerated parent with the child’s welfare when making visitation decisions.

Published on: September 6, 2023

Appellate Division upheld denial of visitation rights of young child with incarcerated father. Matter of Ellett v. Ellett, 265 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Ellett v. Ellett the court was ask to grant an incarcerated individual in-person visitation with his young daughters. That would require the daughters to be brought to him at Clinton Correctional Facility.

In matters of visitation rights for incarcerated individuals, New York law acknowledges the importance of maintaining parent-child relationships while considering the child’s best interests. The court may grant visitation even during incarceration, presuming it aligns with the child’s well-being. However, factors such as the child’s age, the nature of the parent’s sentence, and the potential impact of visitation on the child’s welfare play pivotal roles. While visitation denial is a drastic measure, the court weighs these elements judiciously to ensure decisions align with the unique circumstances of each case, emphasizing the paramount interest of the child involved.

Background

Published on: September 4, 2023

Father’s incarceration alone did not warrant denial of his visitation petition. Rodriquez v. Van Putten, 309 AD2d 807 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

Cases concerning child visitation present intricate legal landscapes. One such case, Rodriquez v. Van Putten (309 AD2d 807), sheds light on the delicate balance between a parent’s right to visitation and a child’s best interests. This Appellate Division case grapples with the implications of a father’s incarceration on visitation rights.

Taking a looking at New York’s general standard for visitation, the courts examine various factors to determine what’s in the child’s best interests are met. The child’s preferences and wishes, adjusted for their age and maturity, are taken into account. Another crucial factor is the nature of the existing relationship between the child and each parent, assessing emotional bonds and effective communication. Additionally, the overall mental, emotional, and physical well-being of each parent is evaluated to ensure they can provide a safe and nurturing environment for the child. Any history of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence is taken into serious consideration to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. Additionally, the parent’s work schedule, availability, criminal record, or any substance abuse issues are scrutinized to understand their ability to be present and responsible caregivers. Overall, New York courts aim to craft visitation schedules that prioritize the child’s growth, development, and happiness, aiming for an environment that fosters their well-being and positive future.

Background

Published on: August 28, 2023

Court determined that change of circumstances necessitated a custody modification. Of v. K, 73 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Of v. K involves a custody modification petitions filed be each parent with each seeking sole custody, which would required a modification to their joint custody arrangement.

To modify custody in New York, a parent must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. This change must warrant modification to serve the child’s best interests. Common grounds include parental misconduct, relocation, or issues impacting the child’s well-being.

Obtaining sole custody in New York demands evidence of the other parent’s unfitness or circumstances posing a risk to the child. Courts prioritize the child’s best interests, assessing factors like parental fitness, stability, and the child’s relationship with each parent. Clear and convincing evidence of these factors is crucial for a court to grant sole custody, ensuring the child’s safety and well-being.

Published on: August 23, 2023

Court concluded that it did not have enough information to decided whether to grant the mother’s petition to relocate. Mason v. Mason, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 4018 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Mason v. Mason, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 4018, presents a complex scenario involving a relocation petition within the context of a custody dispute. The petitioner-respondent mother sought permission to relocate with the children to North Carolina while the father wanted the children to move with him to Georgia.

Relocation petitions in New York involve a custodial parent requesting court permission to move with a child, often to another state. Courts assess such petitions based on the child’s best interests, considering factors like the reasons for the move, the quality of the parent-child relationships, and the impact on future contact with the noncustodial parent. The seminal case of Tropea v. Tropea guides these determinations, emphasizing a case-by-case analysis to determine the outcome most likely to serve the child’s well-being. Relocation cases require a thorough examination of various factors to ensure a fair and informed decision aligning with the child’s best interests.

Background

Published on: August 21, 2023

Appellate Division dismissed father’s petition for sole custody. Latray v. Hewitt, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Latray v. Hewitt, the court considered a petition by the father seeking sole custody. New York courts seek to order joint custody when possible. Courts often prefer to order joint custody as it reflects a commitment to maintaining both parents’ involvement in a child’s life, provided it is in the best interests of the child. Joint custody, whether joint legal or joint physical, fosters the ongoing relationship between the child and both parents, acknowledging the importance of each parent’s role in the child’s upbringing. However, a court may order sole custody in specific circumstances where it deems it to be in the best interests of the child or children involved. The primary consideration is always the well-being and welfare of the child. Sole custody might be granted if one parent is shown to be unfit or poses a risk to the child’s safety, such as in cases involving substance abuse, domestic violence, or neglect.

Additionally, a court may consider the ability of the parents to cooperate and communicate effectively in matters concerning the child. If one parent demonstrates a consistent pattern of undermining the other’s relationship with the child or obstructing the other parent’s access, the court might lean towards awarding sole custody to the more cooperative and supportive parent.

The child’s preferences, if they are of an age where their opinions are considered, and the existing relationship each parent has with the child will also factor into the court’s decision. Ultimately, the court’s primary goal is to ensure a stable and nurturing environment that promotes the child’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being, and sole custody may be ordered when it aligns with these objectives.

Published on: August 16, 2023

Mother found in violation of custody agreement, and father was granted joint custody. Kanya J. v. Christopher K., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6030 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the legal landscape of family matters, the case of Kanya J. v. Christopher K. presents a complex narrative involving parental rights, custody modifications, and support obligations. The intricate web of legal proceedings unfolds as both parents grapple for a favorable outcome in the best interests of their child. This analysis delves into the background facts, key issues, the court’s holding, and the broader implications of the decisions rendered by the Family Court.

Background

In the period preceding this legal dispute, Kanya J. and Christopher K., parents to a shared child and co-parented. The initial arrangement, established in a consent order dated March 2017, conferred sole custody upon the mother, while the father was granted a graduated parenting time schedule. However, as subsequent months unfolded, a cascade of developments triggered a sequence of legal actions. The mother, citing apprehensions about the child’s well-being, sought to restrict the father’s parenting time.