New York Family Law Blog

Published on: August 14, 2024

Petition to terminate spousal maintenance. Makris v. Makris 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Makris v. Makris, 179 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) is about divorce and maintenance obligations. Spousal maintenance in New York can be terminated under specific conditions defined by state law. One such circumstance is if the recipient spouse remarries, as the obligation to pay maintenance typically ceases upon remarriage. Similarly, the death of either the paying or receiving spouse automatically terminates the maintenance obligation.

Another scenario for termination is if it can be demonstrated that the recipient spouse is self-sufficient or no longer requires financial support. This could result from a significant increase in the recipient spouse’s income or assets, rendering them financially independent. Conversely, if the paying spouse experiences a substantial decrease in income or faces financial hardship, they may petition the court to terminate or modify the maintenance obligation.

Additionally, if there is a significant change in circumstances since the maintenance order was issued, such as a disability affecting either spouse’s ability to work, the court may consider terminating or modifying the maintenance arrangement. Cohabitation by the recipient spouse with a new partner in a relationship similar to marriage may also prompt termination of maintenance, as it suggests the recipient no longer requires financial support.

Published on: August 12, 2024

Court considered whether a reduction in maintenance was warranted on the basis of hardship. Valvo v. Valvo 218 A.D.3d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Valvo v. Valvo, 218 A.D.3d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023) involves an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County regarding a petition to modify maintenance and child support obligations. The dispute arises from a divorce between the petitioner (referred to as the father) and the respondent (referred to as the mother) in 2012.

In New York, Family Court will grant a downward modification in child support only under limited circumstances as follows:

Financial Hardship: One of the most common reasons for seeking a reduction in child support payments is a significant change in the financial circumstances of one or both parents. For example, if the non-custodial parent experiences a loss of income, such as unemployment or disability, they may petition the court for a reduction in child support payments. However, it’s essential to demonstrate that the loss of income is involuntary and not due to willful neglect or avoidance of child support obligations.

Published on: August 8, 2024

Court determined the “home state” under UCCJEA. M.G. v. C.M. 61 N.Y.S.3d 191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a legal framework adopted by most states in the United States to provide clarity and consistency in child custody jurisdiction matters across state lines. It aims to prevent jurisdictional disputes and forum shopping, ensuring that custody determinations are made in the state that is most appropriate and connected to the child and the family.

Under the UCCJEA, the concept of “home state” is crucial in determining which state has jurisdiction over child custody matters. The “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent (or a person acting as a parent) for a consecutive six-month period immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. If the child is less than six months old, the “home state” is the state where the child has lived since birth.

When multiple states are involved in a custody dispute, the UCCJEA provides guidelines for determining which state has jurisdiction. Generally, the state that qualifies as the child’s “home state” will have primary jurisdiction over custody matters. However, if no state meets the criteria of being the child’s “home state,” the UCCJEA outlines other bases for jurisdiction, such as significant connections with the child or the child’s family, emergency circumstances, or whether no other state has jurisdiction.

Published on: August 7, 2024

Court considered whether the consent of the father was required for adoption. In re J’adore. E. 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6788 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a Family Court case in Queens County, the father contested an adoption proceeding initiated by the maternal grandparents of the subject child. The court had to determine whether the father’s consent was necessary for the adoption and whether he had effectively abandoned the child.

Background Facts

The child in question was born in May 2009, losing their mother shortly after birth. Following this loss, the child’s maternal grandparents took on the responsibility of caring for them. From August 2016 onwards, the child lived with the grandparents, who agreed to raise them as their own.

Published on: August 5, 2024

Mother challenges modification to custody order. Turkashwand v. Brock, 189 A.D.3d 1428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Turkashwand v. Brock, 189 A.D.3d 1428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) was a case from Nassau County, New York, which involved modifications to custody and parental access. The case addresses an appeal by the mother against several Family Court orders concerning her custodial rights and the allegations against the father.

To modify an existing custody order, a court must find that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the last order was issued. This standard ensures that the court only revisits custody arrangements when necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The rationale behind requiring a change in circumstances is to provide stability and continuity for the child, avoiding frequent and potentially disruptive changes in their living situation.

In Turkashwand v. Brock, there were allegations of parental alienation. Parental alienation can be a compelling reason for modifying custody because it directly impacts the child’s well-being and their relationship with both parents. Parental alienation involves one parent’s actions that deliberately undermine the child’s relationship with the other parent. This can include speaking negatively about the other parent to the child, limiting contact, or otherwise manipulating the child’s perceptions, resulting in estrangement from the alienated parent.

Published on: August 3, 2024

Court upheld denial of motion to vacate order of protection due to lack of meritorious defense evidence. Thompson-Richmond v. Perez, 157 A.D.3d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In family law cases, orders of protection play a critical role in ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals. The case of Thompson-Richmond v. Perez, 157 A.D.3d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) demonstrates how the courts evaluate motions to vacate default orders of protection.

Vacating an order of protection in New York involves asking the court to cancel or set aside an order that was previously issued. A party can request this under specific circumstances, such as proving they were not properly notified of the court proceedings, providing a reasonable excuse for failing to appear, or showing a significant change in circumstances. The party must also present a potentially meritorious defense or reason why the order should no longer be in effect. Courts assess these requests carefully, balancing the petitioner’s rights with the safety and well-being of the protected individual.

Background Facts

Published on: July 31, 2024

Family Court’s authority to modify settlement agreements. Deborah K. v. Richard K., 203 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Deborah K. v. Richard K., 203 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), a father appealed an order regarding child support and spousal support payments. The court’s decision, entered on March 6, 2020, addressed objections raised by both parties regarding previous orders issued by a Support Magistrate.

Background Facts

In the case before the Family Court of New York County, the dispute stemmed from a stipulation of settlement agreement entered into by the parties on February 26, 2013. A stipulation of settlement agreement in New York is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions agreed upon by parties involved in a legal dispute, typically in the context of a divorce or family law matter. It serves as a formal agreement reached through negotiation or mediation, whereby the parties agree to resolve their differences and settle their legal issues outside of court.

Published on: July 24, 2024

Extending a Family Court order of protection due to willful violation. Sicina v. Gorish, 209 A.D.3d 658, (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Sicina v. Gorish, 209 A.D.3d 658, (N.Y. App. Div. 2022) the court considered whether to extend an order of protection. In New York, a family court order of protection may be extended for various reasons, including instances where the order has been violated. When a violation occurs, the court may opt to extend the duration of the order to provide continued protection to the petitioner.

One primary reason for extending an order of protection is to ensure the safety and well-being of the petitioner and any other individuals covered by the order. If the court finds that the respondent has willfully violated the terms of the order, it may view this as evidence that the threat to the petitioner still exists. Therefore, extending the order allows the court to maintain safeguards against potential harm.

Moreover, extending an order of protection serves as a deterrent to future violations. By imposing additional time on the order, the court sends a clear message that violations will not be tolerated and that consequences will follow. This can act as a deterrent to the respondent, discouraging further attempts to breach the terms of the order.

Published on: July 22, 2024

Appellate Division considered whether extraodinary circumstances existed warranting custody by grandparents. Anne MM. v. Vasiliki NN. 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2161 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

Anne MM. v. Vasiliki NN. 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2161 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022), involves a question of grandparents rights and the concept of extraordinary circumstances. In the context of a child custody case involving grandparents, “extraordinary circumstances” refers to specific situations or conditions that are deemed exceptional or unusual, warranting the court’s intervention to grant custody or visitation rights to the grandparents over the biological parents. These circumstances must demonstrate that the child’s well-being and best interests are significantly compromised if custody or visitation remains with the parents.

Examples of extraordinary circumstances may include instances of surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, an extended disruption of custody, or other similarly severe conditions. For instance, if a parent engages in gross misconduct or displays behaviors indicating utter indifference or irresponsibility towards the parental role, such as allowing the child to live in squalor, failing to address serious substance abuse or mental health issues, or exhibiting instability in housing or employment, these could constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The court examines the aggregate of behaviors and circumstances to determine if they rise to the level of being extraordinary. It’s not merely about isolated incidents but rather about patterns of behavior or conditions that substantially impact the child’s well-being and development.

Published on: July 15, 2024

Appellate Division ordered a custody modification hearing due to alleged changes in circumstances and caregiving. O’Mahoney v. O’Mahoney, 206 A.D.3d 819(N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a matrimonial case involving child custody and economic provisions, the Supreme Court of Queens County addressed the defendant’s request to modify the custody arrangement and to vacate the economic provisions of the divorce judgment. This case underscores how courts evaluate requests for custody modification and challenges to economic terms based on alleged changes in circumstances and claims of fraud.

Background Facts

The parties married in 2004 and divorced by judgment dated May 4, 2016. They were awarded joint legal custody of their two children, born in 2011, with residential custody granted to the plaintiff and parental access to the defendant. The judgment also required the defendant to pay $25 per month in child support. Neither party sought maintenance during the divorce proceedings.