New York Family Law Blog

Published on: October 4, 2024

Separation agreement is enforceable only if it involved full financial disclosure. S.M.S. Kabir v. Kabir, 85 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, separation are agreements are enforceable, but only if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that both parties must make full financial disclosures, including all of their assets. The case of S.M.S. Kabir v. Kabir, 85 A.D.3d 1127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) involves a dispute over the validity of a separation agreement between a husband and wife. The wife sought to set aside the agreement, claiming that it was not fairly negotiated and that key financial information had been withheld by the husband.

Background Facts

The parties were married and later entered into a separation agreement on July 11, 2007. The wife later claimed that the agreement was unfair because the husband had allegedly concealed several assets during the negotiation. She stated that she did not discover these concealed assets until 2009, two years after the separation agreement had been signed.

Published on: October 3, 2024

Court vacated final order of protection after determining that the absence of respondent at hearing was not willful. Muhammadu v. Barcia, 100 A.D.3d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In hearings regarding orders of protection, if one party does not show up and does not provide an explanation, the court will typically issue a default order against that absent party. In the case of Troy Barcia in Muhammadu v. Barcia, 100 A.D.3d 904 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the issue before the court centered on a default final order of protection that was issued and whether there was substantive evidence to support the order.

Background Facts

On August 8, 2011, a family offense petition was filed against Troy Barcia. The petitioner alleged multiple offenses, including attempted assault, assault in the second or third degree, aggravated harassment, harassment, menacing, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. The Family Court responded to the allegations by issuing a temporary order of protection that was to remain in effect until August 15, 2011.

Published on: October 2, 2024

Appellate Division found that injuries are not required to meet criminal definition of serious physical injury to be considered child abuse. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ferida B. (In re Jonah B.), 85 N.Y.S.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved three related child abuse and neglect proceedings under the Family Court Act, Article 10, in Queens County, New York. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) filed allegations against the parents and maternal grandmother of a child named Talia. The Family Court, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed allegations of abuse and derivative abuse. ACS and the children appealed, arguing that the court erred in not finding abuse.

Background Facts

In April 2014, ACS began two child abuse and neglect proceedings against the mother, father, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandmother. The allegations centered on the care of the child Talia, who was four months old at the time. Talia was taken to the hospital on April 7, 2014, where doctors diagnosed her with multiple injuries, including rib fractures, fractures in both legs, and a fracture in her right arm. The injuries occurred between her birth on December 5, 2013, and April 7, 2014. ACS claimed these injuries were not accidental and were inflicted while Talia was in the care of her parents and grandmothers. ACS also argued that Jonah, Talia’s sibling, was derivatively abused.

Published on: October 1, 2024

Mother found to have abused child, even though multiple caregivers were present around the time of the injuries. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to abuse of children, the courts look at not only the person who was accursed of inflicting the abuse, but also any individuals who were caring for the child around the time that the abuse occurred. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Allison B. (In re Dall. P.), 185 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involved serious injuries to a two-year-old child and raised questions about the responsibilities and actions of caregivers. The court had to determine whether the mother could be held responsible for her child’s injuries based on the evidence presented during the fact-finding hearing.

Background Facts

The case began when the mother and her boyfriend brought the mother’s two-year-old son, Dallas P., to Jamaica Hospital on August 22, 2015. Dallas had a ruptured bowel that required emergency surgery. The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated legal proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10, alleging that the mother had abused the child. During the fact-finding hearing, the court heard from several witnesses, including medical professionals. Dr. Edmond Kessler, the treating pediatric surgeon, testified that faint bruises were observed on the child and that the only reasonable explanation for the injury was a single, high-velocity traumatic event. Dr. Kessler also indicated that the injury occurred within 6 to 24 hours before Dallas was admitted to the hospital.

Published on: September 30, 2024

Court imputed income to nonworking mother. Remsen v. Remsen, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 5342 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a recent case before the Family Court, Westchester County, a mother appealed an order denying her objections to a prior decision that directed the father to pay child support and spousal support. The court’s decision was based on imputing income to the mother.

Imputed income refers to the assignment of income to a parent for the purpose of calculating child support obligations, even if that parent does not currently earn that income. This legal concept is applied when the court believes that a parent has the capacity to earn more income than they are currently earning or reporting.

In child support proceedings, imputed income typically arises when one parent alleges that the other parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed to avoid or reduce their child support obligations. The court may impute income to the parent based on their earning capacity rather than their actual income. This ensures that the child’s financial needs are adequately met, regardless of the parent’s employment status or reported income.

Published on: September 25, 2024

Court vacated an acknowledgement of paternity. Escobar v. Pagan, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4912 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In proceedings under Family Court Act articles 5 and 6, several orders issued by the Family Court of Suffolk County were contested. These orders pertained to issues surrounding paternity, acknowledgment of paternity, and parental access to a child. In a relatively unusual move, the court vacated an acknowledgement of paternity.

In New York, the court may vacate an acknowledgment of paternity under specific circumstances, typically when there is evidence that the acknowledgment was obtained through fraud, duress, or mistake of fact.

Firstly, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the acknowledgment was obtained through fraud, the court may intervene to vacate it. Fraudulent circumstances could include misrepresentation of paternity by one of the parties involved, such as if the individual signing the acknowledgment knew they were not the biological parent but falsely claimed to be.

Published on: September 18, 2024

Does a grandmother have standing to seek visitation? Noguera v. Busto, 189 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Noguera v. Busto, 189 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) centered around a maternal grandmother’s right to visitation with her grandchild, which was initially denied by the Family Court. In New York, grandparents may seek visitation rights if one or both parents are deceased, or if conditions warrant equitable intervention. The court must first determine standing based on these circumstances and then assess if visitation serves the child’s best interests, considering the existing relationship’s quality and duration.

Background Facts

The case involved a maternal grandmother who sought legal visitation rights to her grandchild, following a complex familial situation that crossed international borders. The child, born in 2009, was initially involved in custody proceedings between his parents. In 2012, during these proceedings, the mother unlawfully took the child from the United States to Argentina, without the consent of the father. This act triggered a lengthy and intense search involving multiple law enforcement agencies, including the police, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of State. In 2018, their efforts resulted in the successful return of the child to the father in the United States.

Published on: September 17, 2024

In the absence of specific related to why the move would be in the best interests of the child, the court denied a parental relocation request. Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a parent wants to relocate with their child, they must get the permission of the other parent or of the court. The court will approve such a request to relocate and modification of a custody order if it is in the best interests of the child.

In Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), the petitioner mother sought to modify an existing custody and visitation order, requesting permission to relocate with her child from Ontario County to Monroe County and seeking sole custody. The Family Court dismissed her petitions. On appeal, the mother argued that the court erred in its decision. The appellate court examined the case under the factors set out in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea to determine whether the relocation was in the best interests of the child.

Background Facts

Published on: September 16, 2024

Mother’s request to relocate with child to Florida denied because not in the best interests of the child. Holtz v. Weaver, 94 A.D.3d 1557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute over parental relocation. The mother, who had primary custody of the child, sought permission from the court to relocate with the child to Florida. The father opposed the move, and the matter was brought before the court for a decision. The court had to determine whether the proposed relocation was in the best interests of the child, as required by New York law.

Background Facts

The mother and father had divorced, and custody of their child was shared, with the mother being the primary custodial parent. The mother filed a petition seeking to modify the custody and visitation arrangements that were part of their divorce judgment. She requested permission to move with the child to Florida, citing her desire to care for her ill father, who lived there. The father opposed the relocation, arguing that it would negatively impact his relationship with the child and was not in the child’s best interests.

Published on: September 15, 2024

Court addressed maintenance, child support, and reimbursement disputes in a high-income divorce case. Tuchman v. Tuchman, 201 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a divorce and related financial matters, including maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, addressed disputes over payments, income allocation, and financial obligations between the parties. Both the plaintiff and the defendant challenged various aspects of the court’s rulings.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in January 1985 and had four children. At the time of the trial, two of their children were still unemancipated. In November 2012, the plaintiff filed for divorce, seeking ancillary relief. Over the course of the proceedings, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in June 2017, resolving issues related to equitable distribution, property, and legal fees. However, other matters, including maintenance and child support, proceeded to trial.