New York Family Law Blog

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.

Published on: August 14, 2023

No due process violation found and order terminating parental rights of father upheld. Christopher D.S. v. Richard E.S., 136 A.D.3d 1285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Christopher D.S. v. Richard E.S. involves a father’s appeal from a decision terminating his parental rights with respect to five children. The father challenges the denial of his recusal request and asserts a violation of due process regarding diligent efforts for reunification.

In New York, terminating parental rights is governed by Social Services Law § 384–b, a statute designed to protect the welfare of children when parental relationships become untenable. The law outlines a meticulous process to safeguard the best interests of the child before such a severe measure is taken. A termination proceeding under § 384–b typically arises in cases of parental neglect, abuse, or other circumstances jeopardizing the child’s well-being.

Before initiating termination proceedings, the petitioner, often a child protective agency or the Department of Social Services, must establish grounds for termination, such as abandonment, chronic abuse, or substantial neglect. The court conducts a thorough examination, considering the child’s safety and best interests paramount.

Published on: August 9, 2023

Court refused to allow father who was convicted for child rape to have visitation with his child. Davis v. Davis, 265 AD2d 552, 553 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1999)

by Stephen Bilkis

The “best interests of the child” is a paramount legal standard used in family law to guide decisions regarding custody, visitation, support, and other matters that directly affect children. Essentially, it mandates that any decision made by the court or involved parties must prioritize what is best for the child’s overall well-being, growth, and development.

The case of Davis v. Davis, 265 AD2d 552, 553 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1999), delves into a visitation proceeding with unique circumstances, shedding light on how the court navigates the complexities to determine what is in the best interests of the child.

When it comes to visitation, the court’s focus is firmly on ensuring the child’s welfare, emotional development, and stability throughout the visitation process. This means maintaining a consistent and stable visitation schedule that helps the child feel secure. The quality of the relationship between the child and the visiting parent is a critical factor, with a positive and strong bond being seen as beneficial for the child. Safety and well-being during visitation are paramount, so the court carefully examines the environment and the visiting parent’s ability to provide a nurturing and secure space. Additionally, the court assesses the parents’ fitness and capacity to provide a stable and loving environment during visitation.

Published on: August 7, 2023

Court determined that it was not in the best interests of the child to grant visitation to incarcerated petitioner. Rodriquez v. Van Putten, 309 AD2d 807 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

The principle of “best interests of the child” is a fundamental legal standard used in family law to guide decisions regarding child custody, visitation, support, and other matters that impact a child’s well-being. It is a paramount consideration meant to ensure the child’s overall welfare and development take precedence over the desires or interests of the parents or other parties involved.

In essence, determining the best interests of the child involves a thorough assessment of various factors. These can include the child’s age, physical and mental health, educational needs, established routines, relationships with each parent, and any history of domestic violence or substance abuse within the family.

Judicial decisions are made with the aim of promoting stability, security, and continuity in the child’s life, ensuring they maintain meaningful and consistent relationships with both parents when possible. The court strives to create an environment that encourages the child’s growth emotionally, physically, intellectually, and morally.

Published on: March 27, 2023

Weight a teenage child’s preference should be given in a custody dispute. Newton v. McFarlane, 174 A.D.3d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York custody disputes, the weight given to a teenage child’s preferences can significantly impact the court’s decision. While the child’s input is considered, it’s not the sole determinant in custody proceedings. Judges take various factors into account, including the child’s age, maturity level, and ability to articulate their wishes. Additionally, the court evaluates the child’s relationship with each parent, their living arrangements, and overall well-being. While a teenager’s desires are taken seriously, the court ultimately prioritizes the child’s best interests.

Background

In 2013, the Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, a 17-year-old girl, to the father. This decision was affirmed by the court. In 2016, the mother initiated her third attempt at custody modification, seeking sole legal and physical custody. Despite objections from the child’s attorney, the Family Court conducted a full custody hearing without assessing if the mother had alleged a sufficient change in circumstances. Following the hearing, the Family Court concluded that the mother demonstrated changed circumstances justifying sole custody, stating it was in the child’s best interests. However, the court failed to provide a detailed explanation for its decision in the order, promising a full decision that was never issued.

Published on: December 28, 2022

Family Court dismissed case because the parties did not have a family or intimate relationship. Coleman v. McKenzie, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50514 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, Family Court can only adjudicate matters that involve people in “familial” relationships. Generally, familial relationships are blood relationships, marriage relationships, and intimate relationships. Note that an intimate relationship does not have to be a sexual relationship. However, it does need to be more than a casual friendship. The purpose of a family court proceeding, pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act, is to allow a petitioner the opportunity to seek help for the offending family member instead of subjecting the family member to the potential punishment that would be imposed by a criminal court. In Coleman v. McKenzie, the court was asked to decide if a relationship amounts to a “familial” relationship as contemplated by Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

Background

On December 30, 2021, the petitioner filed a petition in Family Court requesting a final Order of Protection against respondent. In response, the respondent argued that the court should dismiss the petition because the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because a familial connection did not exist between the petitioner and the respondent. CPLR § 3211 (a)(2). The petitioner responded that that the petitioner and the respondent are “like family,” and therefore have a relationship that satisfies the requirements of Article 8 of the Family Court Act.