Articles Posted in Custody

Child custody disputes with jurisdictional issues present significant challenges, especially when the children have been residing in a state other than New York. One of the primary challenges is determining which state has jurisdiction over the case, as this impacts various aspects of the legal proceedings, including custody determinations and child support orders.

When children have been living outside of New York, the issue of “home state” jurisdiction arises under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Establishing the “home state” is crucial because it dictates which state’s courts have primary jurisdiction over custody matters. However, when children have resided in a different state for an extended period, as in this scenario, determining the “home state” becomes complex and may require careful examination of the children’s residency history.

Furthermore, conflicting claims of residency between the parents add another layer of complexity to jurisdictional disputes. In cases where one parent asserts residency in New York while the other claims residency in another state, the court must carefully evaluate the evidence presented by both parties to determine the children’s primary residence and the state with the most significant connections to their lives.

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.

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.

Jurisdiction over a custody decision is typically determined based on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) guidelines, which prioritize the child’s “home state” as the primary jurisdiction for custody matters. The “home state” is defined as the state where the child has resided with a parent or guardian for a continuous period of at least six months prior to the custody proceeding’s initiation. If the child has no “home state” or if there is a dispute regarding jurisdiction, other factors such as significant connections with the state and substantial evidence relating to the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships are considered.

Additionally, courts may decline jurisdiction if it is determined to be an inconvenient forum and another state is deemed more appropriate based on factors such as the child’s connections to each state, the location of evidence and witnesses, and the parties’ ability to present their case effectively. Ultimately, the overarching goal is to ensure that custody decisions are made in the jurisdiction that can best serve the child’s interests and welfare.

Background Facts

Background Facts

In July 2021, the Family Court of Onondaga County awarded the petitioner, the father, sole legal and primary physical custody of the children involved. Additionally, it provided the mother with supervised visitation rights, stipulating that the specifics of these visitations be mutually agreed upon by both parents. This decision was subsequently appealed by the mother, who contested several aspects of the ruling.

The mother’s appeal focused on issues relate to the process of service of the notice of appeal, the admission of certain evidence, and the terms of her visitation rights. Particularly contentious were the admission of text message screenshots between the mother and the children, and a recorded conversation, which she argued contained inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, the mother challenged the representation by the attorney for the children (AFC), claiming an improper substitution of judgment regarding the children’s wishes, which she believed conflicted with their best interests

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a set of laws enacted in all 50 states of the United States, including New York, to provide a legal framework for determining which state has jurisdiction over child custody matters. The primary aim of the UCCJEA is to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure that custody decisions are made in the best interests of the child.

In New York, the UCCJEA is codified under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §§ 75-a to 77-b. These provisions outline the rules and procedures for determining jurisdiction in cases involving child custody, visitation, and relocation across state lines.

One of the key principles of the UCCJEA is the concept of “home state” jurisdiction. Under DRL § 75-a(7), the “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent or guardian for at least six consecutive months prior to the commencement of a custody proceeding. This provision ensures that the state with the closest connection to the child is given priority in deciding custody matters.

The court’s primary aim in custody disputes is to ensure the well-being and best interests of the child. One way it seeks to achieve this is by favoring joint custody arrangements whenever possible. Joint custody allows both parents to remain actively involved in the child’s life, providing them with emotional support, guidance, and stability from both maternal and paternal figures. This arrangement can promote a sense of security and continuity for the child, as they maintain regular contact and relationships with both parents.

Moreover, joint custody acknowledges the importance of fostering a healthy co-parenting dynamic. When parents are amicable and able to cooperate effectively, joint custody can minimize conflict and reduce the negative impact of divorce or separation on the child. It encourages parents to communicate openly, make decisions together, and prioritize the child’s needs above personal differences or disputes.

However, despite the court’s preference for joint custody, there are circumstances where this arrangement may not be feasible or in the child’s best interests. When parents exhibit hostility or antagonism towards each other, it can create a toxic environment that adversely affects the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. In such cases, joint custody may exacerbate conflict and instability, leading to further distress for the child.