Published on:

by

In this case a father appealed a decision of the Family Court to suspend his visitation. The original custody order followed the parents’ divorce.  The father was granted visitation.  The order was later modified requiring that the father’s parental access had to occur in a public place.  The mother again petitioned the court to modify the custody order, further restricting the father’s access to the child.  The Family Court granted the mother’s petition and suspended the father’s access altogether.  The father appealed.

When the Family Court issues a final custody order, it will only change it if the circumstances have significantly changed, as a custody order is issued only after the court has carefully considered substantial testimony and evidence.  Often there is testimony from medical professionals.  When appropriate the child will testify and give his or her preference.  The goal of Family Court is always to facilitate healthy relationships between the child and both parents, and works with both parents to make sure that they each get to spend a significant amount f time with the child.  However, each case is different.  Ultimately, the child court will take all of the information presented and make a custody decision based on what is in the best interests of the child.  In some cases that may mean that it is necessary to modify the order so that the visitation is restricted.

Circumstances that would warrant a change to a custody order include a change in the lifestyle of the household, such as a new job that requires the parent to be absent often.  Substance abuse or violence in the household would require a modification as it is not in the best interests of the child to be in a dangerous environment.  If a parent experiences physical or mental health problems such that he or she would have difficulties caring for the child or such that the child would be in danger, the court would consider modifying the custody order.  Of course, the court will consider the preference of the child, particularly when the child gets older.

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

by

The issue before the court is whether a parent who adopted out her children had the right to seek custody of them upon learning that the children were being sexually abused by the adoptive father.

The petitioner voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to her three children, 2 daughters and a son.  As part of the post-surrender agreement, the mother retained the right to visit with the children, and she did so regularly. The three children were subsequently adopted.  A few years after the adoption, Biological Mother found out that the children were not living in a safe environment.  One of her daughters was being sexually abused by Adoptive Father.  The other daughter was being sexually abused by an unrelated person.  The son was being bullied in the adoptive home.  In response, Biological Mother sought custody of the children.  Adoptive Father admitted that he sexually abused one of the daughters and was in jail. Adoptive Mother filed a motion opposing Biological Mother’s petition, arguing that she had no standing to file for custody.  Adoptive Mother also stated that she wanted to keep the children and that she was divorcing the adoptive father. In addition, the attorney representing the children opposed Biological Mother’s petition for custody.

The question before the court is whether a biological mother who previously surrendered her children has standing to bring an Article 6 custody petition against the children’s adoptive parents in a case where the adoptive father has admitted to sexually abusing one of the children.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
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

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

KG v G

NY Slip Op 04278

Pursuant to Section 50011 of the Rules, this case was affirmed with costs. Much like the appellate opinion and in consideration of a substantial downward departure from support set out in the Child Support Standards Act, this court can’t say the Supreme Court was in error. Before incorporating the party’s agreement into a judgement, it addressed the provision in question in the framework of a larger agreement and each of the party’s respective finances in a way that secured adequate child support for each child, as the parties originally intended (Domestic Relations Law 240 (1-b[h]). Judges Difiore, Fahey, Rivera, Wilson and Feinman concur. Judge Stien offered his dissent and Judge Garcia agrees.

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

by

T v T

In this case, the family court determined that the Respondent violated two temporary Orders for Protection. It was found that the court acted properly in entering an order for protection after these findings.

The Petitioner filed an offense petition against the Respondent, She received a temporary Order for Protection. While that order was pending, the court found that the Respondent had violations on two temporary orders. The court dismissed the family offense order but sustained the violation of the petitions and issued a one year order for protection. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information