Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

by

D.E. v S.F. & T.E.

The motion to dismiss for lack of standing filed by the defendants, and dismissal of visitation rights filed by the plaintiff are denied. The plaintiff’s cross motion is granted in part and denied in part.

In February of 2018, the petitioner who lives in Nassau County filed a Visitation Petition in Nassau Family Court seeking visitation rights of her grandson. The matter was transferred to Kings Family Court in March of 2018, because the child lives in Brooklyn with his parents.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Matter of T v C

Decision

Pursuant to the Family Court Act, Article 6, a mother appeals from a Family Court order dated 1/10/18. The order granted the father’s petition for sole physical and legal custody, and awarded the other partial access, but denied her sole custody.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

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.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this case, the petitioner filed against the respondent to whom she is married and has one child. The petitioner received a temporary order for protection against the respondent. This was ordered to direct the respondent to cease from all communications with the petitioner, except those relating to the care of the child. Through various court appearances, the order was extended. The petitioner filed various violation petitions.

The violation petitions were consolidated. The court concluded that she failed to prove a family offense petition, but the court sustained the violation petition and issued a one-year final protection order.

The respondent appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. One dissenting justice claimed that the family court lacked jurisdiction for the final order because the family offense petition had been dismissed [147 AD3d 675]. The court certified to this court regarding this issue.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

2017 NY Slip Op 06309

August 23, 2017

Decision

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

No. P-3017

May 25, 2017

The parties, in this case, were domestic partners. After 2005, they decided to have children. K.H. would carry the children and become pregnant via a sperm donor. The parties separated in 2011.

Continue reading

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information