New York Family Law Blog

Published on: March 15, 2023

Court found evidence of deliberate parental alienation causing harm to children. Pustilnik v. Pustilnik, 73 A.D.3d 824 (2d Dep’t 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

Parental alienation is a problem that can have a profound impact on the relationships between children and their parents. It is a situation in which one parent deliberately tries to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent. The alienating parent may make false allegations of abuse, interfere with visitation rights, or try to turn the child against the other parent. Parental alienation can have long-lasting effects on the child’s emotional and psychological well-being, as well as the alienated parent’s relationship with the child. It is a serious issue that requires prompt and effective intervention to minimize its harmful effects. In Pustilnik v. Pustilnik, the court reviewed the standard for proving parental alienation.

Factual Background

In Pustilnik v. Pustilnik, the parties were involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle. The mother was seeking sole custody of the children, and the father was seeking joint custody. The court appointed a forensic evaluator to investigate the situation and make a recommendation regarding custody. The forensic evaluator found that the mother had engaged in a campaign of parental alienation against the father. The evaluator found that the mother had made false allegations of abuse against the father, interfered with the father’s visitation rights, and tried to turn the children against the father.

Published on: March 13, 2023

Mother’s alienation behavior led to custody transfer to father. DiTorro v. DiTorro, 277 A.D.2d 198 (2d Dep’t 2000)

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody disputes are often emotionally charged and contentious, and they can be further complicated by the issue of parental alienation. Parental alienation is a phenomenon that can occurs during or after a divorce, where one parent manipulates or influences their child to turn against the other parent. This can result in the child rejecting or exhibiting hostility towards the targeted parent. Parental alienation is considered harmful to the child’s psychological well-being and can lead to long-term negative consequences.

In New York, courts take allegations of parental alienation very seriously and may even change custody arrangements to protect the child’s best interests as well as order counseling. This was demonstrated in the case of DiTorro v. DiTorro, which involved allegations of parental alienation and the impact it had on child custody arrangements.

Factual Background

Published on: March 8, 2023

Ex-wife’s significant contributions to ex-husband’s career warranted high support. Poppas v. Poppas, 288 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, when determining spousal support, the court considers various factors, including the duration of the marriage, the income and earning capacity of each spouse, and the contributions that each spouse made to the other’s career during the marriage. The latter factor can be particularly significant, as demonstrated by the case of Poppas v. Poppas.

In general, when determining spousal support, the court considers the contributions that each spouse made to the other’s career during the marriage. This is because marriage is viewed as a partnership where both spouses contribute to the success of the family unit. If one spouse sacrificed their own career opportunities to support the other spouse’s career, the court may consider this when determining spousal support.

The contributions that a spouse may make to the other’s career can include anything from financial support to emotional support and even physical assistance. For example, a spouse may have supported the other’s education or training, provided emotional support during difficult times, or even helped with day-to-day tasks to allow the other spouse to focus on their career.

Published on: March 6, 2023

Ex-husband required to pay spousal support to stay-at-home mom ex-wife. Wickerham v. Wickerham, 35 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, spousal support or maintenance is designed to provide a stream of income to a dependent spouse to ensure that he or she can maintain the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to during the marriage. Spousal support may be granted to a spouse who is a stay-at-home parent and who may have sacrificed their own career or education to support the other spouse’s career or to care for the children. In many cases, this can be a woman who has stayed at home to raise children and care for the household, although it can also apply to men who fulfill this role.

When deciding on spousal support, the court takes into account a number of factors, including the length of the marriage, the income of both parties, the earning potential of each spouse, and the contributions made by each spouse to the marriage, including any sacrifices made by a stay-at-home parent. Courts will often consider the standard of living enjoyed by the couple during the marriage and will attempt to provide for the dependent spouse in a manner that is consistent with that standard of living.

In cases where a spouse has sacrificed their own career to support the other spouse’s career or to care for the children, the court may consider the income that the stay-at-home parent could have earned had they pursued their own career. This is known as imputed income, and it can be used to calculate spousal support. For example, if a stay-at-home parent gave up a career as a lawyer to care for the children, the court may impute income based on what the lawyer could have earned had they continued their career. In cases like Wickerham v. Wickerham the court must take a closer look at the stay-at-home parent’s contributions to the marriage.

Published on: March 1, 2023

Due to ex-wife’s health issues, ex-husband ordered to pay permanent spousal support. Pizzimenti v. Pizzimenti, 135 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, spousal support is determined based on a variety of factors, including the length of the marriage, the standard of living established during the marriage, and the respective incomes and earning capacities of the parties. When circumstances change, such as a change in income or health issues, a modification to the spousal support order may be necessary.

Health issues can have a significant impact on spousal support determinations in New York. When one spouse has health problems that prevent them from working or require significant medical care, the court may order the other spouse to pay a higher amount of spousal support to compensate for the additional expenses. In Pizzimenti v. Pizzimenti, the court recognized the ex-wife’s health issues as a key factor in determining the amount of permanent spousal support the ex-husband was ordered to pay. The court considered her medical expenses and her inability to work, highlighting the importance of health issues in spousal support determinations.

Factual Background

Published on: February 27, 2023

Ex-husband’s decrease in income warranted reduction of spousal support. O’Brien v. O’Brien, 60 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a couple goes through a divorce, one of the most contentious issues that often arises is spousal support. Spousal support, also known as alimony, is a court-ordered payment made by one spouse to the other after a divorce or separation. When a court enters an order for spousal support, it is typically based on the financial needs of the receiving spouse and the ability of the paying spouse to meet those needs. However, circumstances can change, and sometimes a modification of the spousal support order is necessary.

The standard for modification of a spousal support order in New York is a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. The party seeking modification has the burden of proving that there has been a significant change in circumstances that warrants a modification of the existing support order. In O’Brien v. O’Brien, the court was asked to consider whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a modification of the spousal support order.

Factual Background

Published on: December 28, 2022

Family Court dismissed case because the parties did not have a family or intimate relationship. Coleman v. McKenzie, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50514 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, Family Court can only adjudicate matters that involve people in “familial” relationships. Generally, familial relationships are blood relationships, marriage relationships, and intimate relationships. Note that an intimate relationship does not have to be a sexual relationship. However, it does need to be more than a casual friendship. The purpose of a family court proceeding, pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act, is to allow a petitioner the opportunity to seek help for the offending family member instead of subjecting the family member to the potential punishment that would be imposed by a criminal court. In Coleman v. McKenzie, the court was asked to decide if a relationship amounts to a “familial” relationship as contemplated by Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

Background

On December 30, 2021, the petitioner filed a petition in Family Court requesting a final Order of Protection against respondent. In response, the respondent argued that the court should dismiss the petition because the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because a familial connection did not exist between the petitioner and the respondent. CPLR § 3211 (a)(2). The petitioner responded that that the petitioner and the respondent are “like family,” and therefore have a relationship that satisfies the requirements of Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

Published on: December 26, 2022

Because of a mother’s pattern of false accusations against the father, the court modified the custody order. Aquitani v. Aquitani (In re a Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act), 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50730 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2022)

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Published on: December 19, 2022

Court denied mother’s request to relocate out-of-state with child. Dunn v Harris 2022 NY Slip Op 50641(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Whenever parents wants to relocate with the children, there is likely going to be objections from the other parent. Custody orders routinely include provisions that prevent one parent from permanently leaving the jurisdiction with the children without the consent of the other parent. In making a decision whether to permit a parent to relocate with the child, the court will consider what is in the best interests of the child.

In Dunn v Harris 2022 NY Slip Op 50641(U), the mother wished to relocate from New York to Denver, Colorado for a new job. The father objected. The mother responded by seeking legal custody and permission to relocate to Denver, Colorado.

Background

Published on: December 14, 2022

Court awarded sole custody to mother because she was better able to provide for the needs of the child. a Child Custody Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act v. TD, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 52151 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

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.