New York Family Law Blog

Published on: January 5, 2026

Videos Were Not Properly Authenticated. Matter of M.S. (M.H.), 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00825 (N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of M.S. (M.H.), the New York Court of Appeals considered whether Family Court properly admitted video evidence in an abuse proceeding under Family Court Act article 10. The case involved a mother, M.H., her daughter, M.S., and her son, G.H. Erie County alleged that M.H. abused M.S. by failing to protect her from sexual abuse by M.H.’s former live-in boyfriend, D.K., and that she derivatively abused G.H. The case turned on three videos that appeared to show D.K. engaging in sexual contact with M.S. The Court was asked to decide whether the foundation for those videos was sufficient and whether they should have been received into evidence.

Background Facts

In February 2022, Erie County filed article 10 petitions against M.H. and D.K., alleging abuse of M.S. and G.H. The petitions were based on three videos bearing 2019 timestamps. In those videos, D.K. appeared to be engaged in sexual contact with M.S. on a couch in the family living room. M.S. was 14 at the time shown in the timestamps. In one video, M.H. appeared to leave the room before the conduct shown later in the recording.

Published on: November 5, 2025

Custody Modification Awarding Father Primary Physical Custody. Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH., 2022 NY Slip Op 01492

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Matter of Andrea II. v. Joseph HH. involved two custody modification petitions filed by both parents of a child born in 2014. The matter required the court to decide whether there had been a change in circumstances since a prior custody order, and if so, what custodial arrangement would serve the child’s best interests. Both parents had a history of substance abuse, and the court evaluated each parent’s current circumstances, their ability to provide stability, and the child’s needs before deciding primary physical custody.

Background Facts
In June 2018, the parties entered a consent order granting joint legal custody to both parents. The child’s paternal grandparents had primary physical custody. The mother had supervised parenting time every other week, supervised by the maternal grandmother. The father’s parenting time was supervised by the paternal grandfather as agreed between them.

In October 2019, the mother sought to modify the order to grant her sole custody with supervised visitation to the father. In February 2020, the father filed a petition seeking full custody, citing his sobriety and stable home. The mother amended her petition, alleging changes in circumstances, including the loss of her alternate week visitation after the child began school in Binghamton near the paternal grandparents’ home.

Published on: October 8, 2025

Relocation Condition Removed from Custody Award. Matter of Wright v. Burke, 2024 NY Slip Op 01815

by Stephen Bilkis

In 2021, both Alex Wright and Sanchel Burke filed custody petitions in the Family Court, Kings County. The case involved their child, who had moved with the mother from Brooklyn to Binghamton. The father sought sole legal and physical custody, and the mother also sought sole legal and physical custody. A key question was whether the court could require the mother to move back to New York City as a condition of keeping custody. The court was also tasked with setting a parental access schedule for the father that took into account the child’s best interests.

Background Facts
The parties never married and are the parents of one child. The father lived in Brooklyn, while the mother and child moved to Binghamton in 2021. Following that move, both parents filed petitions for sole legal and physical custody.

In March 2023, after a hearing, the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody. However, the order included two conditions: that the mother relocate with the child back to New York City and that the child be enrolled in a school in Brooklyn within a 20-minute commute from the father’s residence. The court stated that if the mother did not meet these conditions, custody would be transferred to the father.

Published on: September 3, 2025

Relocation Request in Custody Case. Matter of Emily F. v. Victor P., 2024 NY Slip Op 24189

by Stephen Bilkis

In February 2022, Emily F. filed a petition in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, seeking to modify a 2017 final order of custody and visitation. She requested permission to relocate her child from New York to North Carolina over the objection of the father, Victor P. The case came before the court on remittal from the Appellate Division for a new fact-finding hearing. The court considered testimony, documentary evidence, and the relocation standard in New York, which requires the moving parent to show that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.

Background Facts
Emily F. and Victor P. were previously married and lived in the Bronx between 2013 and 2016. They separated in 2016 after incidents of domestic violence. The 2017 custody order, issued on consent, gave the mother sole legal and physical custody and provided the father with parenting time. The mother lost her job at New York University in 2020 due to budget cuts and searched extensively for employment in New York, applying for over 65 positions. When she was unable to find work, she began looking in North Carolina, where she had family. In February 2022, she received an offer from Duke University and relocated with the child in June 2022.

Since the move, the child has been living in a gated community, performing well in school, participating in tutoring and athletic activities, and maintaining friendships. The father’s parenting time has been inconsistent, with missed opportunities during several school breaks and holidays. The mother offered to pay travel costs and proposed a schedule that included substantial time in New York and North Carolina. The child expressed a preference to remain in North Carolina while continuing to spend time with the father. The father did not testify or present evidence during the hearing.

Published on: August 20, 2025

Father Granted Relocation to South Carolina. Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05348

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Scotto v. Alexander, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a Family Court decision denying a father’s request to relocate with his children from New York to South Carolina. The case examined the legal standard for relocation, the factors courts must weigh when a custodial parent seeks to move, and how evidence on financial stability, educational needs, and family support can influence the court’s determination. It also addressed the impact of relocation on the noncustodial parent’s access to the children and how parenting schedules can be adjusted to preserve relationships.

Background Facts
The parents, who were never married, had two children, born in 2012 and 2016. In April 2017, they entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement granting the father sole legal and residential custody. The mother was given supervised parental access.

The father and children lived in a house in New York owned by the father’s grandmother. In November 2021, the father filed a petition to modify the 2017 stipulation to allow him to relocate with the children to South Carolina. He testified that he could no longer continue renting his grandmother’s house. The mother contributed $25 per month in child support for both children.

Published on: August 13, 2025

Failure to Provide Notice Before Withdrawing Counsel Requires Reversal. Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00215

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), the Appellate Division, Third Department, considered whether the Family Court of Schenectady County erred in proceeding with a neglect fact-finding hearing without the mother or her attorney present. The case involved important questions about a parent’s right to counsel in Family Court Act article 10 neglect proceedings, and the procedures that must be followed when assigned counsel seeks to withdraw. The decision also addressed how the failure to give proper notice of withdrawal can affect the validity of a neglect finding.

Background Facts

The mother and father were unmarried parents of four children born between 2003 and 2013. In July 2020, the Schenectady County Department of Social Services (DSS) received a report concerning the children. The children were removed from the parents’ care and placed in DSS custody. DSS filed separate neglect petitions against each parent under Family Court Act article 10.

Published on: August 11, 2025

Mother’s Violation Petition Denied; Father’s Relocation to Florida Granted. Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., the Family Court of Tompkins County addressed two petitions involving custody and parenting time for a child born in 2020. The mother filed a violation petition alleging that the father withheld court-ordered supervised parenting time. The father filed a relocation petition seeking to move with the child to Florida. This case involved application of the legal standard for relocation under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), which requires the moving parent to show that relocation is in the child’s best interests. It also highlights the consequences for withholding court-ordered supervised parenting time, which can include findings of contempt, fines, makeup time, and possible changes to custody.

Background Facts

In September 2022, the parents consented to an order granting the father sole custody and placement of the child, with supervised parenting time for the mother. Parenting time was to be arranged through the parties’ attorneys.

Published on: August 7, 2025

Mother’s Child Support Agreement Vacated Due to Mutual Mistake. Matter of Michelle B. v. Thomas Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 50020(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the case Matter of Michelle B. v. Thomas Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 50020(U), the Family Court of Kings County reviewed objections filed by a mother challenging a Support Magistrate’s refusal to vacate an agreement she had made during a child support enforcement proceeding. The issue involved a stipulation in which the mother agreed to accept a future pension payment in exchange for waiving more than $140,000 in child support arrears.

Background Facts

Michelle B. and Thomas Y. are the parents of a child born out of wedlock in 1992. In 2011, a support order was issued directing the father to pay child support through the Support Collection Unit (SCU). The father was previously found in willful violation of the order and served a six-month jail sentence in 2019. At that time, arrears were converted into a judgment and the father began paying $23 bi-weekly under a SCU payment plan.

Published on: August 7, 2025

Subpoena Challenge Dismissed as Moot After Child Support Case Ends. Matter of Abidi v. Antohi, 58 A.D.3d 726 (2d Dep’t 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a child support case, business records may need to be produced to determine a parent’s true income, especially if they are self-employed or own a business. Unlike regular wage earners, business owners may have control over how income is reported. Financial statements, tax returns, and expense records can help the court assess actual earnings and verify whether income is being hidden or underreported. Accurate income information is necessary to calculate a fair support amount. Records from a spouse or partner’s business may also be relevant if household expenses are being shared or subsidized by that income.

In Matter of Abidi v. Antohi, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a nonparty husband could appeal a Family Court order compelling him to produce business records in a child support proceeding involving his wife and her former partner.

Background Facts

Published on: August 7, 2025

Support Violation Order Vacated Due to Lack of Jurisdiction. Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, 172 A.D.3d 1475 (3d Dep’t 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Pudvah v. Pudvah, the Appellate Division, Third Department, addressed whether a family court in New York had the legal authority to confirm a support violation order that was never initiated by a proper petition. The court found that, without a formal violation petition filed under Family Court Act § 453, the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the support violation order against the father was vacated.

Background Facts

The mother and father divorced in Florida in 2014. As part of the divorce judgment, the father was required to pay $84 per month in child support. The father later moved to New York. In 2016, the Florida child support agency requested that the New York Family Court register the support order for enforcement purposes under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The Support Magistrate in New York registered the order in November 2016 and determined that the father owed arrears.