New York Family Law Blog

Published on: March 10, 2025

Court Addresses Custody While Parents Still Living Together. David v. Stephanie, 2021 NY Slip Op 21223

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York child custody cases, courts must decide what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. Custody decisions are based on many factors, including each parent’s relationship with the child, ability to provide care, and willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent. In most custody cases, the parents are already living separately or preparing to live in separate households. In David v. Stephanie, the court was asked to make a custody decision even though the parents were still living together. This case raised an important legal issue: whether a court could issue a custody order before the parents formally separated.

Background Facts

The parents in this case were married and had two minor children. They lived together in the same home during their divorce proceedings. Both parents filed motions asking the court to award them custody of the children and exclusive possession of the marital home. The mother also asked the court for permission to relocate with the children to the West Coast. The father opposed the relocation and asked for joint legal custody and equal parenting time in New York.

Published on: March 3, 2025

Parental Alienation Leads to Suspension of Child Support. Matter of Morgan v. Morgan, 2023 NY Slip Op 00424

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York custody and support cases, courts consider whether a parent’s actions interfere with the other parent’s rights. Custody decisions are based on what is in the best interests of the child. When a parent asks to change a custody order or support obligation, the court must determine whether a change in circumstances has occurred. A change in circumstances refers to a significant development that affects the parenting arrangement or the child’s relationship with a parent. In Matter of Morgan v. Morgan, the court addressed whether a parent’s interference with visitation rights could justify suspending child support.

Background Facts

The parents were divorced and had two daughters born in 2004 and 2006. After the divorce, the children lived in the Dominican Republic with their maternal grandmother. In 2009, they moved to New York to live with their mother. The mother was granted sole custody, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

Published on: February 15, 2025

Court awarded sole custody to the mother, emphasizing stability, her caregiving role, and father’s undermining behavior. Vickie F. v. Joseph G., 195 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, courts generally favor shared custody, as maintaining relationships with both parents is often in a child’s best interests. However, sole custody may be awarded when it better serves the child’s needs. This typically occurs in cases involving abuse, neglect, substance abuse, or when one parent clearly demonstrates superior parenting abilities. The court’s primary focus is the child’s safety, emotional health, and overall stability. Factors such as the parents’ ability to cooperate, the child’s preferences, and the home environment are also considered to ensure decisions promote the child’s well-being.

This case involved a contentious custody dispute between two parents as part of divorce proceedings in Saratoga County. The Supreme Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children to the mother. The father challenged this decision, arguing that the court erred in its determination and violated his procedural rights during the hearing and trial process.

Background Facts

Published on: January 21, 2025

Court denied partition and breach of contract claims, emphasizing prior divorce settlement resolved property disputes. Cruz v. Cruz, 213 A.D.3d 805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved a dispute over a marital residence following a divorce settlement. The plaintiff sought summary judgment to partition and sell the property and to recover damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, addressing the equitable considerations and contractual obligations at the heart of the dispute.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 1974 and jointly purchased a marital residence as tenants by the entirety. In 2013, the plaintiff filed for divorce, seeking a share of the property’s value. In 2017, the parties settled the divorce action with a so-ordered stipulation, which resolved all issues of equitable distribution, including claims on the property. The stipulation required the defendant to make a lump sum payment to the plaintiff to satisfy all property-related claims. The stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the 2018 judgment of divorce.

Published on: January 17, 2025

Appellate Division required further evidence to justify imputed incomes and recalculated child support. Pilkington v. Pilkington, 185 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the appellate court reviewed the child support determination made by the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The trial court’s judgment imputed income to both parties and set child support obligations accordingly. On appeal, both parties challenged the trial court’s findings regarding imputed income and the resulting child support calculation.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 2003 and have two children, born in 2006 and 2007. After the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2013, the parties resolved custody and parenting time matters but left financial issues to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court decided these issues based on submissions from the parties in lieu of a full trial.

Published on: January 15, 2025

Court determined that the defendant’s family business interests were marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Ferrante v. Ferrante, 128 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In divorce proceedings, dividing business interests can present unique challenges, particularly when family businesses are involved. In this case, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County addressed the equitable distribution of the defendant’s interests in two family businesses.

Background Facts

The parties were married in 1993, and the plaintiff filed for divorce in 2012. During the marriage, the defendant was involved in three family businesses: Unique Sanitation, U-Need-A-Roll Off, and Paragon Recycling. These businesses were originally founded by the defendant’s father, who transferred ownership interests in various ways over time.

Published on: January 6, 2025

Court changed child’s permanency goal from reunification with mother to adoption due to safety concerns. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Shay S. P. (In re Peter T.), 173 A.D.3d 1043, (N.Y. App. Div. 2019),

by Stephen Bilkis

Family Court decisions can significantly impact families, particularly when they involve decisions about a child’s future care. A permanency goal in New York refers to a plan established during family court proceedings to determine the long-term living arrangement for a child in foster care. Goals can include reunification with parents, adoption, placement with relatives, or another planned permanent living arrangement. The goal is set based on the child’s best interests, safety, and well-being. It provides a framework for the child’s future, ensuring stability and security. Permanency planning is important because it seeks to minimize the time a child spends in temporary care, promoting continuity and reducing the potential emotional and developmental impact of prolonged uncertainty.

This case involved a mother who appealed a Family Court decision to change the permanency goal for her child from reunification to placement for adoption. The court considered the child’s best interests, the mother’s progress with services, and the risks associated with returning the child to her custody.

Background Facts

Published on: December 30, 2024

Wife contested the termination of spousal support that had been awarded as part of a separation agreement. King v. King, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 1209 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case the court had to determine how to distribute marital property and whether to order spousal support. A complicating factor was that although the couple had been married for over 30 years, during most of that time they were separated.

Background Facts

The couple in this case were married in 1977, but separated in 1989. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $550 biweekly support payments. Over time, these support arrangements underwent adjustments. In 2011, the husband initiated divorce proceedings, citing irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as grounds.

Published on: December 24, 2024

Father’s abandonment of child resulted in being denied custody. Nicole L. v. David M., 195 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021

by Stephen Bilkis

In Nicole L. v. David M., 195 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021, a case of guardianship of a child after the mother’s passing, the Family Court of Columbia County faced a complex situation involving multiple petitions from interested parties. The court’s decision hinged on determining the best interests of the child and addressing claims of abandonment and extraordinary circumstances.

While New York courts favor parents having custody of their children, for a variety of reasons, parents can be denied custody. One reason is abandonment. Abandonment occurs when a parent demonstrates a clear intent to relinquish their parental rights and obligations, often through a pattern of conduct that involves a lack of contact, support, or involvement in the child’s life.

The New York courts recognize abandonment as a serious issue that can detrimentally affect a child’s well-being. According to Social Services Law § 384-b(5)(a) and Domestic Relations Law § 111(2)(a), a parent may be deemed to have abandoned their child if they fail to visit or communicate with the child, demonstrating a disregard for their parental responsibilities.

Published on: December 23, 2024

Maternal grandmother found to have neglected children under Family Court Act. In re Jonah B., 85 N.Y.S.3d 597, (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involved proceedings under Family Court Act Article 10 to determine whether the maternal grandmother of three children, Talia, Jonah, and Adele, was legally responsible for their care and whether she neglected them. In April 2014, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) initiated proceedings against the parents and the maternal grandmother, alleging abuse and neglect of Talia and derivative abuse and neglect of Jonah. After Adele’s birth in February 2015, ACS brought a third proceeding alleging that Adele was derivatively abused and neglected. The allegations centered on the maternal grandmother’s role in caring for the children and her failure to protect them.

The maternal grandmother had a substantial presence in the household. She visited daily, stayed overnight two to three times per week, and provided regular care for Talia, including feeding, diaper changes, bathing, and supervising her while the mother rested or performed household tasks. Despite these responsibilities, the grandmother contested that she was not a person legally responsible for the children and denied the allegations of neglect.

Question Before the Court