New York Family Law Blog

Published on: December 28, 2022

Family Court dismissed case because the parties did not have a family or intimate relationship. Coleman v. McKenzie, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50514 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, Family Court can only adjudicate matters that involve people in “familial” relationships. Generally, familial relationships are blood relationships, marriage relationships, and intimate relationships. Note that an intimate relationship does not have to be a sexual relationship. However, it does need to be more than a casual friendship. The purpose of a family court proceeding, pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act, is to allow a petitioner the opportunity to seek help for the offending family member instead of subjecting the family member to the potential punishment that would be imposed by a criminal court. In Coleman v. McKenzie, the court was asked to decide if a relationship amounts to a “familial” relationship as contemplated by Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

Background

On December 30, 2021, the petitioner filed a petition in Family Court requesting a final Order of Protection against respondent. In response, the respondent argued that the court should dismiss the petition because the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because a familial connection did not exist between the petitioner and the respondent. CPLR § 3211 (a)(2). The petitioner responded that that the petitioner and the respondent are “like family,” and therefore have a relationship that satisfies the requirements of Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

Published on: December 26, 2022

Because of a mother’s pattern of false accusations against the father, the court modified the custody order. Aquitani v. Aquitani (In re a Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act), 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50730 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, courts will only modify a custody order if there has been a change in circumstances. Examples, a change in circumstances include one parent abusing the child or substance abuse. In Aquitani v. Aquitani, there is a history of the mother accusing the father of abuse. Those accusations as well as the father alleging that the mother had a substance abuse problems are the basis of the father’s request to modify the custody order.

In addition to hearing testimony from the parents, the court ordering a Lincoln hearing during which the judge heard testimony from the child regarding his custody and visitation preferences.

Background

Published on: December 19, 2022

Court denied mother’s request to relocate out-of-state with child. Dunn v Harris 2022 NY Slip Op 50641(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever parents wants to relocate with the children, there is likely going to be objections from the other parent. Custody orders routinely include provisions that prevent one parent from permanently leaving the jurisdiction with the children without the consent of the other parent. In making a decision whether to permit a parent to relocate with the child, the court will consider what is in the best interests of the child.

In Dunn v Harris 2022 NY Slip Op 50641(U), the mother wished to relocate from New York to Denver, Colorado for a new job. The father objected. The mother responded by seeking legal custody and permission to relocate to Denver, Colorado.

Background

Published on: December 14, 2022

Court awarded sole custody to mother because she was better able to provide for the needs of the child. a Child Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act v. TD, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to child custody, the preference of the court is to award the parents joint custody because that is what is generally in the best interests of the child. In this case, each parent sought sole legal and physical custody. The court had to figure out if joint custody was feasible and in the best interest of the child or if awarding one of the parents sole custody was appropriate.

Background

Petitioner father and respondent mother are the parents of a 2-year old child, born on June 21, 2017. The couple was never married. Paternity was established on November 22, 2017. The couple had an agreed upon parenting schedule, but did not follow it. Thereafter, Petitioner sought sole legal and physical custody of the child, asserting that his work schedule was more flexible. In the alternative, petitioner requests one day of parenting time a week. In response, the mother also filed a petition seeking sole legal and physical custody of the child.

Published on: December 12, 2022

Court refused father’s request for a temporary modification to custody order. K.A. v. N.Q. (In re a Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act), 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50187 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a court issues a custody order, it is designed to be permanent. Typically, courts consider a substantial amount of evidence from both parents before making a decision on custody. The goal of the court is to do what is in the best interests of the child. Generally, that would be joint custody and relatively equal parenting time. Before issuing the order, the court would consider each parent’s financial situation, each parent’s living environment, who has been the primary caregiver, the parents’ ability to communicate with other, and the each parent’s interest in supporting the other parent’s relationship with the child. Thus, the court will only change a custody order if there has been a change in circumstances.

Generally, when a parent petitions the court about modifying a custody agreement, the parent requests a permanent change to the order because of a change in circumstances. However, there are instances in which the parent requests a temporary change in a custody. In K.A. v. N.Q. the father asked the court to temporary give him sole custody and physical custody until the mother received help for her anger issues.

Background

Published on: December 7, 2022

Where parents disagreed on vaccination issue, the Family Court gave the mother final decision-making authority. L.N. v. V.V., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 52174 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

When parents are awarded joint custody and joint decision-making, it is because that is in the best interests of the child. When issuing such an order, the court has also determined that the parents get along well enough to make parenting decisions jointly, despite disagreeing on some issues. When parents don’t agree and are unable to compromise, the parents often seek a custody modification from the court.

Even in cases where parents are otherwise able to make joint decisions, the issue of vaccinations has been an area of disagreement between parents, leading to litigation. In L.N. v. V.V., the court was asked to give one parent final decision-making authority since the parties were at an impasse on the issue of vaccinations.

Background

Published on: December 5, 2022

Court awarded mother sole custody where father intentionally limited the mother’s access to the child. Matter of T.D. v E.P.B. 2022 NY Slip Op 50971(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Courts want children to have access to both parents and want children to have the opportunity to have positive, loving relationships with both parents. As a result, unless there are convincing reasons not to, the court will order joint custody. This has been found to be in the best interests of the child. However, when parents demonstrate an unwillingness to support the child having a positive relationship with the other parent, the court will adjust custody. In the Matter of T.D. v E.P.B., the Family Court was asked to modify a custody order after the father’s repeatedly limited the mother’s access to the child and removed the child from New York.

Background

The parents have one child who was born in 2015. In 2016, Family Court ordered joint legal and physical custody of the child. However, the father dominated the relationship, making decisions without including the mother. With the help of this girlfriend, he even convinced her to sign an out-of-court agreement that purported to give him sole custody and the mother supervised visitation. In 2020, the father relocated to Florida with the child and without the consent of the mother.

Published on: November 30, 2022

Grandparents petitioned the court for sole custody and the cessation of the child’s visits with the father. Matter of Brady S v Darla B 2020 NY Slip Op 51619(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under some circumstances, grandparents are awarded custody. The court will award grandparents custody if it is in the best interests of the child. However, it has been well-established that having a relationship with the parents is generally preferable, and the court will seek to give parents and their children opportunities to foster positive relationships.

In Matter of Brady S v Darla B, the court was asked to decide whether it was in the best interests of the child to award sole custody to the grandparents or to the child’s father.

Background

Published on: November 28, 2022

Agencies must make reasonable efforts to reunify parents with their children. In re Jose F., 70 Misc. 3d 1211, 136 N.Y.S.3d 875 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

When parents have intellectual or cognitive delays and mental health problems, parenting can be even more challenging than it generally is. It is not unusual for agency involvement and for the children to be removed. However, the goal is still for biological parents to have a role in the lives of their children as long as it is in the best interests of the children. Specific accommodations must be made in order to give the biological parents the opportunity to successfully parent their children. In the case of In re Jose F., the Family Court, Kings County was asked to decide on a permanency plan for two children whose parents had cognitive deficiencies.

Background

Jose, who was 6 weeks, was brought to the hospital. He was significantly underweight and malnourished. Because of the condition of the child and the parents were both mentally delayed the hospital was concerned for the well-being of the child. In fact, they were concerned that the child would die if his parents continued to care for him as they were not aware as to how to care for a child. In addition, the mother was alleged to have bipolar disorder and was not taking her medication. Jose was removed from their care. A second child was born a year later. By that time the parents had made sufficient progress that such that they were permitted to have limited unsupervised time during their agency visits with Jose. Still, a new petition for neglect was filed. Both children were remanded to ACS and both remain in foster care. A permanency hearing was scheduled pursuant to article 10-A of the Family Court Act.

Published on: November 23, 2022

Is establishing paternity in the best interests of a child who had been living with a foster family? Wilson D. v. Anne B., 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51144 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The long-standing policy in New York has been that parents have the right to have a relationship with their children and that it is generally in the best interests of the child for the courts to give parents and children the opportunity to foster a positive relationship. However, there are circumstances where the court finds that it would be in the best interests of the child to not have a relationship with a parent. In Wilson D. v. Anne B., the court was asked to decide if it would be in the best interests of the child to establish paternity where a child had been living in foster care and a bond had developed between the child and the foster parents.

Background

While incarcerated, the putative father of the child filed a petition for custody. Because paternity had not been established, the court held his petition in abeyance pending the court of a paternity test. Meanwhile the child has been placed in foster care and the foster parents developed a close bond with the child.