New York Family Law Blog

Published on: March 31, 2025

Court Adjusts Parenting Time in a Child Custody Case. Matter of Chad KK. v. Jennifer LL., 2023 NY Slip Op 04620 (3d Dep’t)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, custody decisions are based on what is in the best interests of the child. These cases can involve difficult questions about parenting time, joint legal custody, and changes in a child’s mental and emotional condition. In Matter of Chad KK. v. Jennifer LL., the Appellate Division, Third Department reviewed a Family Court decision that kept joint custody in place but modified the father’s parenting time. The court had to evaluate how to balance the child’s relationship with both parents while considering the child’s emotional well-being.

Background Facts
The father and mother were divorced and had two children. A 2019 custody order gave them joint legal custody. The mother had primary residential custody. The father had parenting time on Mondays after school and on alternating weekends, depending on his work schedule.

In February 2020, the father filed a petition to modify the custody order. He claimed there had been a change in circumstances. Specifically, he pointed to the mother’s recent misdemeanor conviction and concerns about the children’s school attendance. He also claimed that the mother was responsible for damaging his relationship with the children.

Published on: March 24, 2025

Paternal Grandmother Granted Custody After Mother’s Long Absence. Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., 2017 NY Slip Op 27192

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, courts decide child custody cases based on what is in the best interests of the child. When a non-parent seeks custody, the court must first decide if that person has legal standing. If standing is found, the court then considers many factors, including the child’s past and present care, the fitness of each party, and the strength of their relationships with the child. In Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., the Family Court considered whether a grandmother who had cared for a child most of her life should receive custody after the child’s father passed away and the mother regained physical possession of the child.

Background Facts
Sydney, the child at the center of the case, lived in her paternal grandparents’ home from the time she was an infant. Although both parents initially lived there, the mother moved out when Sydney was very young. She briefly took Sydney with her but returned her to the father within two weeks. Sydney then continued living with her father and paternal grandmother.

When the parents divorced in 2011, the mother agreed to give the father primary residential custody. She rarely exercised her visitation rights and provided little to no financial support for Sydney.

Published on: March 17, 2025

Mother Permitted to Relocate with Teen Daughter to California in Custody Dispute – K. v. V., 2024 NY Slip Op 50460(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, a parent who wants to relocate with a child must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the move will serve the child’s best interest. Courts consider several factors, including the reasons for the move, the relationship between the child and each parent, the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent, and whether the move would improve the child’s educational, emotional, or economic well-being.

In K. v. V., the Supreme Court of Kings County considered whether a mother should be allowed to relocate with her teenage daughter from Brooklyn, New York to Los Angeles, California. The father objected to the move. The court had to decide whether the relocation would be in the child’s best interest under New York law.

Background Facts

Published on: March 10, 2025

Court Addresses Custody While Parents Still Living Together. David v. Stephanie, 2021 NY Slip Op 21223

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York child custody cases, courts must decide what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. Custody decisions are based on many factors, including each parent’s relationship with the child, ability to provide care, and willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. In most custody cases, the parents are already living separately or preparing to live in separate households. In David v. Stephanie, the court was asked to make a custody decision even though the parents were still living together. This case raised an important legal issue: whether a court could issue a custody order before the parents formally separated.

Background Facts

The parents in this case were married and had two minor children. They lived together in the same home during their divorce proceedings. Both parents filed motions asking the court to award them custody of the children and exclusive possession of the marital home. The mother also asked the court for permission to relocate with the children to the West Coast. The father opposed the relocation and asked for joint legal custody and equal parenting time in New York.

Published on: March 3, 2025

Parental Alienation Leads to Suspension of Child Support. Matter of Morgan v. Morgan, 2023 NY Slip Op 00424

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York custody and support cases, courts consider whether a parent’s actions interfere with the other parent’s rights. Custody decisions are based on what is in the best interests of the child. When a parent asks to change a custody order or support obligation, the court must determine whether a change in circumstances has occurred. A change in circumstances refers to a significant development that affects the parenting arrangement or the child’s relationship with a parent. In Matter of Morgan v. Morgan, the court addressed whether a parent’s interference with visitation rights could justify suspending child support.

Background Facts

The parents were divorced and had two daughters born in 2004 and 2006. After the divorce, the children lived in the Dominican Republic with their maternal grandmother. In 2009, they moved to New York to live with their mother. The mother was granted sole custody, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

Published on: February 15, 2025

Court awarded sole custody to the mother, emphasizing stability, her caregiving role, and father’s undermining behavior. Vickie F. v. Joseph G., 195 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, courts generally favor shared custody, as maintaining relationships with both parents is often in a child’s best interests. However, sole custody may be awarded when it better serves the child’s needs. This typically occurs in cases involving abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or when one parent clearly demonstrates superior parenting abilities. The court’s primary focus is the child’s safety, emotional health, and overall stability. Factors such as the parents’ ability to cooperate, the child’s preferences, and the home environment are also considered to ensure decisions promote the child’s well-being.

This case involved a contentious custody dispute between two parents as part of divorce proceedings in Saratoga County. The Supreme Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children to the mother. The father challenged this decision, arguing that the court erred in its determination and violated his procedural rights during the hearing and trial process.

Background Facts

Published on: January 21, 2025

Court denied partition and breach of contract claims, emphasizing prior divorce settlement resolved property disputes. Cruz v. Cruz, 213 A.D.3d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute over a marital residence following a divorce settlement. The plaintiff sought summary judgment to partition and sell the property and to recover damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, addressing the equitable considerations and contractual obligations at the heart of the dispute.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 1974 and jointly purchased a marital residence as tenants by the entirety. In 2013, the plaintiff filed for divorce, seeking a share of the property’s value. In 2017, the parties settled the divorce action with a so-ordered stipulation, which resolved all issues of equitable distribution, including claims on the property. The stipulation required the defendant to make a lump sum payment to the plaintiff to satisfy all property-related claims. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the 2018 judgment of divorce.

Published on: January 17, 2025

Appellate Division required further evidence to justify imputed incomes and recalculated child support. Pilkington v. Pilkington, 185 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellate court reviewed the child support determination made by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The trial court’s judgment imputed income to both parties and set child support obligations accordingly. On appeal, both parties challenged the trial court’s findings regarding imputed income and the resulting child support calculation.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 2003 and have two children, born in 2006 and 2007. After the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, the parties resolved custody and parenting time matters but left financial issues to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court decided these issues based on submissions from the parties in lieu of a full trial.

Published on: January 15, 2025

Court determined that the defendant’s family business interests were marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Ferrante v. Ferrante, 128 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In divorce proceedings, dividing business interests can present unique challenges, particularly when family businesses are involved. In this case, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County addressed the equitable distribution of the defendant’s interests in two family businesses.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 1993, and the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2012. During the marriage, the defendant was involved in three family businesses: Unique Sanitation, U-Need-A-Roll Off, and Paragon Recycling. These businesses were originally founded by the defendant’s father, who transferred ownership interests in various ways over time.

Published on: January 6, 2025

Court changed child’s permanency goal from reunification with mother to adoption due to safety concerns. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Shay S. P. (In re Peter T.), 173 A.D.3d 1043, (N.Y. App. Div. 2019),

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court decisions can significantly impact families, particularly when they involve decisions about a child’s future care. A permanency goal in New York refers to a plan established during family court proceedings to determine the long-term living arrangement for a child in foster care. Goals can include reunification with parents, adoption, placement with relatives, or another planned permanent living arrangement. The goal is set based on the child’s best interests, safety, and well-being. It provides a framework for the child’s future, ensuring stability and security. Permanency planning is important because it seeks to minimize the time a child spends in temporary care, promoting continuity and reducing the potential emotional and developmental impact of prolonged uncertainty.

This case involved a mother who appealed a Family Court decision to change the permanency goal for her child from reunification to placement for adoption. The court considered the child’s best interests, the mother’s progress with services, and the risks associated with returning the child to her custody.

Background Facts