New York Family Law Blog

Published on: December 18, 2024

Grandparent seeks custody in an interstate case. Peggy RR. v. Jenell RR. 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23252 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Peggy RR. v. Jenell RR. 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 23252 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2023) is a complex child custody case. Not only does it involve a grandparent seeking access to her grandchild, it also has interstate elements.

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is a statutory agreement among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that governs the placement of children across state lines. It was created to ensure that children placed out of their home state for foster care or adoption receive the same protections and services that would be available if they remained in their home state. Additionally, the ICPC ensures that the placement is in the best interests of the child and is safe and suitable before it is finalized.

Background Facts

Published on: December 17, 2024

Appellate Division ordered a hearing to resolve custody disputes and parental access modifications. Trazzera v. Trazzera, 158 N.Y.S.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In custody disputes, courts prioritize the child’s best interests, considering circumstances that may necessitate modifications to prior agreements. This case addresses a post-divorce dispute where both parents sought modifications to their custody and parental access arrangements. The Supreme Court initially ruled without a hearing, but the appellate court reversed and ordered a hearing to address unresolved issues.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant, parents of one child, divorced in 2019, incorporating a stipulation of settlement into the judgment of divorce. The agreement granted joint legal custody, joint decision-making authority, and residential custody to the defendant, with parental access for the plaintiff.

Published on: December 17, 2024

Appellate Division upheld equitable distribution awarding defendant one-third value of marital jewelry business. Kamm v. Kamm, 120 N.Y.S.3d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The equitable distribution of marital property and the award of maintenance are central issues in many divorce cases. A case from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, involving a long-term marriage and disputes over the division of a jewelry business and the awarding of maintenance, provides a clear illustration of these issues.

Background Facts

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1984 and had two children who were emancipated by the time of the trial. Early in the marriage, the plaintiff sold the parties’ townhouse and the defendant’s engagement ring to open a jewelry business. This business became the family’s primary source of income. The defendant left her job as a credit investigator to focus on homemaking and raising the children.

Published on: December 15, 2024

Court addressed restrictions on communication and social media in divorce. Kassenoff v. Kassenoff, 213 A.D.3d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Divorce proceedings often involve disputes that extend beyond financial and custodial issues, sometimes requiring courts to address matters like communication and speech. In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Westchester County, the court reviewed restrictions on the defendant’s communication with employees of the plaintiff’s employer and on both parties’ use of social media. The defendant challenged these restrictions, claiming they violated her constitutional rights.

Background Facts

The parties in this case were involved in a divorce action. During the proceedings, issues arose concerning the defendant’s communications with employees of the plaintiff’s employer. The plaintiff’s employer was also the defendant’s former employer, and the plaintiff alleged that these communications interfered with his professional life. Additionally, concerns were raised about the potential impact of social media posts by either party on their children and their reputations.

Published on: December 9, 2024

Was father entitled to a credit for all excess payments? Merritt v. Merritt 188 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, when a parent has overpaid child support, they may be entitled to a credit for excess payments. This credit applies to future child support obligations. The process usually requires a formal court order or a judge’s decision confirming the overpayment and approving the credit. This situation often arises after a successful appeal or modification of a child support order that results in a reduced payment obligation. In Merritt v. Merritt 188 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020), a proceeding in Westchester County, New York, a father appealed a Family Court decision that limited the credit he received for excess child support payments.

Background Facts

The parties involved, a mother and a father, were divorced in 2010 after having three children together. As part of the divorce settlement incorporated into the judgment, the father was mandated to pay $3,272 monthly in child support. This amount was subject to an annual recalculation based on his income, which was to be at least $175,000. In December 2014, following a consent order, his child support obligation increased to $4,593 per month.

Published on: December 8, 2024

Corporal punishment and allegations of neglect. Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ketly M. (In re Alven V. ), 143 N.Y.S.3d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. Ketly M, the Family Court of Kings County addressed allegations of child neglect against a stepmother. The case raised questions about the use of corporal punishment and its legal limits. The court found that the stepmother had neglected one child through excessive corporal punishment and derivatively neglected two other children in the household.

In the context of child neglect, corporal punishment refers to the use of physical force as a disciplinary method. While parents or guardians may use reasonable physical discipline, excessive corporal punishment crosses the line into neglect under New York law. Neglect occurs when physical force causes harm or poses a substantial risk of harm to a child’s physical or emotional well-being. Actions such as hitting a child with objects or inflicting injuries demonstrate excessive corporal punishment. Courts assess whether the punishment was reasonable based on the circumstances, the child’s age, and the severity of the discipline (see Family Ct Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)).

Background Facts

Published on: December 6, 2024

Mother’s permanency hearing appealed dismissed as moot. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Antoinette W. (In re Malazah W.), 121 N.Y.S.3d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Permanency hearings are critical in child welfare cases, ensuring that children placed in the care of social services have stable and appropriate long-term plans. In Matter of Malazah W. and Malikah W., the Family Court addressed the permanency goal for two children removed from their mother’s care due to neglect. The mother appealed a February 2019 permanency hearing order, which continued the goal of reunification and the children’s placement with Westchester County’s Commissioner of Social Services (CSS).

Background Facts

Antoinette W., the mother of Malazah W. and Malikah W., consented to a finding of neglect without admission under Family Court Act Article 10. The children were placed in the custody of CSS. As part of the permanency planning process, a hearing was held in November 2018 to assess the children’s status and determine the appropriate permanency goal.

Published on: December 1, 2024

Court vacated family offense and protection orders after default. Gastaldi v. Gastaldi, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York family offense order of protection is a legal directive issued by the Family Court to safeguard individuals from abuse or harassment by a family member or someone with a close relationship. It is available in cases involving allegations of domestic violence or family offenses such as assault, harassment, stalking, or threats. The order may require the respondent to stay away from the petitioner, cease abusive behavior, vacate a shared residence, or surrender firearms. Violations of an order of protection are taken seriously and can lead to criminal consequences. It is a tool to ensure safety and peace

In family law, orders of protection are issued to ensure the safety of individuals who may be at risk of harm. However, the process of obtaining such orders must follow procedural rules to ensure fairness for all parties involved. In Matter of Gastaldi v. Gastaldi, the Family Court was asked to review whether a prior decision, entered in the absence of one party, should be vacated to allow both sides the opportunity to present their cases.

Background Facts

Published on: December 1, 2024

Father’s abuse of one child led to derivative neglect findings. In re Joshua J.P. (Anonymous). Admin. for Children’s Servs., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case addressing allegations of sexual abuse and derivative neglect, the Family Court, Richmond County, issued an order that found Alquiber R., Sr., responsible for sexually abusing his stepson, Joshua P., and derivatively neglecting his two biological children, Luis P. and Alquiber R. The decision underscores the court’s role in protecting the safety and well-being of children and its reliance on corroborated testimony and expert evidence in cases involving abuse allegations. This blog examines the case, the questions it raised, and the court’s determination.

Background Facts

The petitioner in this case, the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), alleged that Alquiber R., Sr., sexually abused Joshua P., a child in his care, and that this conduct demonstrated a lack of judgment that placed his other children, Luis P. and Alquiber R., at risk of harm. Joshua P. made out-of-court statements describing incidents of abuse, which were later corroborated by a sexual abuse expert and an ACS caseworker. ACS argued that this evidence was sufficient to establish that Alquiber R., Sr.’s conduct not only harmed Joshua P. but also created a dangerous environment for the other children.

Published on: November 27, 2024

Plaintiff requested termination of spousal support and recalculation of child support. JJ v. TW, 70 Misc. 3d 1225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

In JJ v. TW, 70 Misc. 3d 1225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021), among other things, the plaintiff requested that the court terminate spousal support. An interesting aspect of New York law when it comes to spousal support modification is that the Family Court Act and the Domestic Relations Law outline different conditions under which spousal support can be modified.

Under the FCA section 412, spousal support orders can be modified upon certain events, including:

A written or oral stipulation or agreement between the parties.