Published on:

In this case, the court discusses the question of parental alienation and whether it requires a change in the primary residence of the children.

The parties agreed to custody in 2013. The couple has three daughters. In their agreement, the father was the custodial parent and agreed to a shared visitation schedule with the mother.

During the first month of the agreement, a dispute arose and the father sought a TRO against the mother for a period of one year. The court later issued an order resolving what had become a lengthy series of disputes.

Published on:

C vs C

This case was filed for divorce and ancillary relief. The defendant appeals a prior judgment dated March 24, 2014. In that decision, the order denied the defendant’s cross-motion which was to use one-third of the child’s time spent in Israel visiting with the paternal grandmother. The prior decision also denied without prejudice the portion of the cross-motion which ordered visitation with the paternal grandmother when she was in the U.S.

This court affirms.

Published on:

KG v G

NY Slip Op 04278

Pursuant to Section 50011 of the Rules, this case was affirmed with costs. Much like the appellate opinion and in consideration of a substantial downward departure from support set out in the Child Support Standards Act, this court can’t say the Supreme Court was in error. Before incorporating the party’s agreement into a judgement, it addressed the provision in question in the framework of a larger agreement and each of the party’s respective finances in a way that secured adequate child support for each child, as the parties originally intended (Domestic Relations Law 240 (1-b[h]). Judges Difiore, Fahey, Rivera, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Stien offered his dissent and Judge Garcia agrees.

Published on:

T v T

In this case, the family court determined that the Respondent violated two temporary Orders for Protection. It was found that the court acted properly in entering an order for protection after these findings.

The Petitioner filed an offense petition against the Respondent, She received a temporary Order for Protection. While that order was pending, the court found that the Respondent had violations on two temporary orders. The court dismissed the family offense order but sustained the violation of the petitions and issued a one year order for protection. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Contact Information