Articles Posted in Custody

In New York custody disputes, the weight given to a teenage child’s preferences can significantly impact the court’s decision. While the child’s input is considered, it’s not the sole determinant in custody proceedings. Judges take various factors into account, including the child’s age, maturity level, and ability to articulate their wishes. Additionally, the court evaluates the child’s relationship with each parent, their living arrangements, and overall well-being. While a teenager’s desires are taken seriously, the court ultimately prioritizes the child’s best interests.

Background

In 2013, the Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, a 17-year-old girl, to the father. This decision was affirmed by the court. In 2016, the mother initiated her third attempt at custody modification, seeking sole legal and physical custody. Despite objections from the child’s attorney, the Family Court conducted a full custody hearing without assessing if the mother had alleged a sufficient change in circumstances. Following the hearing, the Family Court concluded that the mother demonstrated changed circumstances justifying sole custody, stating it was in the child’s best interests. However, the court failed to provide a detailed explanation for its decision in the order, promising a full decision that was never issued.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.