New York Family Law Blog

Published on: June 12, 2024

Interference with grandparent visitation rights. Shimunov v. Davydov 179 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Interference with visitation rights in New York is a serious matter that can occur in various family dynamics, not limited to disputes between parents. While it often arises in the context of parental visitation arrangements, where one parent obstructs the other’s court-ordered visitation with their child, it can also extend to situations involving other family members or guardians who have been granted visitation rights by the court.

In cases of parental interference, one parent may intentionally obstruct or prevent the other parent from spending court-ordered time with their child. This interference can take various forms, including refusing to comply with the visitation schedule, making it difficult for the other parent to communicate with the child, or even hiding the child to avoid visitation altogether. Such actions can have detrimental effects on the parent-child relationship and the well-being of the child.

However, interference with visitation rights is not exclusive to parents. In instances where grandparents, stepparents, or other relatives have been granted court-ordered visitation rights, interference may occur when one party attempts to impede or undermine those visitation arrangements. This interference could involve denying access to the child during scheduled visitation times, manipulating the child’s feelings towards the visiting relative, or otherwise obstructing the court-ordered visitation process.

Published on: June 10, 2024

Mother challenges court awarding father sole custody. Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) is an appeal from a an order issues in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding. A Family Court Act Article 6 proceeding refers to cases handled under Article 6 of the New York Family Court Act, which covers matters related to the custody, guardianship, and visitation of children.

These proceedings determine who will be legally responsible for a child’s care, who will make major decisions about the child’s life, and how visitation with a non-custodial parent will be handled. Article 6 provides the legal framework for addressing these issues, focusing on the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in any decision made by the court. This includes evaluating factors such as the stability of each parent, their ability to care for the child, the child’s wishes (depending on their age and maturity), and any history of abuse or neglect. These proceedings are necessary for establishing a legal arrangement that supports the child’s welfare and the rights of both parents.

In Allison v. Seeley-Sick, the order, dated August 2019, encompassed various modifications sought by the petitioner father, ultimately granting him sole custody of the children with supervised visitation for the mother. The ensuing legal debate revolved around the mother’s challenge to this decision, alleging, among other things, an abuse of discretion and failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying the modification.

Published on: June 7, 2024

Appellate Division considered whether the length and terms of an order of proctection were appropriate. Dayonna W. v. Jhon S. 201 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Dayonna W. v. Jhon S. 201 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), an order of protection was issued against the respondent, directing him to stay away from the petitioner until June 10, 2023. The order stemmed from a fact-finding determination that the respondent committed the family offenses of second-degree harassment and third-degree assault.

In Family Court, the determination of the length and terms of an order of protection is based on several factors, primarily focused on ensuring the safety and well-being of the petitioner. The court considers the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature and severity of the alleged offenses, the relationship between the parties involved, and any history of violence or harassment.

One consideration is the extent of the perceived threat to the petitioner’s safety. If the court finds that there is a substantial risk of harm to the petitioner, it may issue a longer-term order of protection to provide extended protection. Conversely, if the risk is deemed less severe or temporary, the court may opt for a shorter-term order.

Published on: June 5, 2024

Court considered the validity of the restrictions imposed on the father’s parental access to his children. In re Fatuma I., 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 7234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In In re Fatuma I., 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 7234 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), the father appeals from an order dated January 13, 2022, which imposed restrictions on his parental access to his children. The court directed that the father could only have supervised access and prohibited him from being alone with the children or staying overnight in their home.

Background Facts

The subject children were removed from their parents’ care in 2015 due to allegations of sexual abuse and derivative abuse. Derivative abuse refers to a situation where a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect as a result of being in the care of someone who has abused or neglected them indirectly. For example, if a child is exposed to domestic violence between their parents or caregivers, even if they are not the direct target of the abuse, they may still suffer emotional or psychological harm, which is considered derivative abuse. Similarly, if a child witnesses substance abuse or other harmful behaviors by a caregiver, it can have detrimental effects on their well-being, constituting derivative abuse. Essentially, it involves harm suffered by a child due to the actions or behaviors of those responsible for their care, even if the abuse or neglect is not directly inflicted upon the child themselves.

Published on: June 3, 2024

Whether New York possesses initial child custody jurisdiction, considering the children’s residency outside the state. Matter of E.P. v B.S. 2023 NY Slip Op 23318

by Stephen Bilkis

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.

Published on: May 29, 2024

Whether mother should be required to pay back child support that father paid after children turned 21. Frederick-Kane v. Potter 187 A.D.3d 1436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case before the Family Court of Albany County involved an appeal from an order dated November 16, 2018. This order addressed a modification of child support, highlighting the complexities surrounding parental obligations post-divorce.

In New York, child support modification can be pursued under certain circumstances outlined in the statutes. Family Court Act § 451 provides the grounds for modifying an existing child support order. One such ground is a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the last child support order. This change must be significant and ongoing, affecting either the financial situation of the parents or the needs of the child.

Another ground for modification is the passage of three years since the entry of the last child support order, or since the order was last modified, whichever is later. This provision allows for a review of child support obligations to ensure they remain fair and appropriate over time.

Published on: May 27, 2024

Whether the consent of the father is required for adoption. Statini v. Reed 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In general, it is necessary for both parents to consent to an adoption to ensure that the child’s best interests are protected and to maintain the integrity of the family unit. This requirement serves as a safeguard to prevent the involuntary termination of parental rights and ensures that both parents have a say in the future of their child. By requiring the consent of both parents, the adoption process aims to promote stability and permanency for the child while respecting the rights of biological parents. Additionally, obtaining consent from both parents helps to establish a legal framework for the adoption, providing clarity and certainty for all parties involved. However, there are exceptions to this general rule.

In Statini v. Reed, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 4304 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022), the Family Court of Dutchess County faced the issue of the legalities surrounding an adoption of a child with the consent of the father.

Background Facts

Published on: May 22, 2024

Requirement of supervised visitation challenged by mother. Thompson v. Thompson, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the mother challenged the father being awarded sole custody and the requirement of her visitation being supervised.

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.

Published on: May 20, 2024

Spousal support claims abates upon the death of either party. Bomer v. Dean, 195 A.D.3d 1518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Abatement is the act of reducing or nullifying something. There are several different types of abatement. For example, when it comes to a testamentary gift, abatement refers to the reduction in the value of a specific bequest due to insufficient funds in the estate to fulfill all bequests proportionately.

In the context of divorce or family law, abatement upon death refers to the termination or nullification of certain legal actions or claims following the death of one of the parties involved. In Bomer v. Dean, 195 A.D.3d 1518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021), the New York court considered the issue of the abatement of divorce actions upon the death of a party involved.

Background Facts

Published on: May 15, 2024

Was there sufficient evidence to vacate an acknowledgement of paternity? C.R. v. Y.P., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50603 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

C.R. v. Y.P., 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50603 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2020) involves the determination of fatherhood for a child born to respondent Y.P. (referred to as Ms. P) and listed on the birth certificate as J.E., with S.D.E. acknowledged as the father. However, petitioner C.R. contested this acknowledgment, asserting his own paternity over J.E.

Background Facts

C.R. v. Y.P. involves the determination of paternity for a child named J.E., born to respondent Y.P. (referred to as Ms. P). The birth certificate, filed shortly after J.E.’s birth, listed S.D.E. as the father, based on an acknowledgment of paternity signed by S.D.E. and Ms. P. However, petitioner C.R. contested this acknowledgment, claiming to be J.E.’s biological father.