New York Family Law Blog

Published on: November 6, 2013

Court Decides Custody in Relocation Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This Family action concerns custody of two children, ages 13 and 11. The current proceedings were commenced when the father filed a petition pursuant to Article 6 of the Family Court Act seeking a modification of an Order of Custody of the children after the mother relocated beyond the radius clause in their divorce stipulation. The mother subsequently filed her own petition.

A New York Family lawyer said that pursuant to a contented-to stipulation and the Judgment of Divorce the parties were divorced in 1998. As per the terms of their stipulation, the mother had sole custody of the two children and the father had certain rights of child visitation. One provision of their stipulation was that the mother could not relocate outside of a fifty (50) mile radius with the children. Each party became involved with other long-term partners and each has had other children. The mother and her paramour, have been together approximately nine years and have two children out of wedlock. The father is remarried and together they have one child. Each family unit lived in various areas of Queens and Long Island over the years until the mother moved, with her paramour, the subject children and her other two children to Pennsylvania. It is this move that has spurred the current litigation.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that in September 2006 the father filed a petition for custody of the two subject children. Despite being properly served with the custody petition, the mother did not appear in Court for over three court appearances. On the fourth court appearance, the mother did appear in Court that morning, but then did not return to Court that afternoon, despite being told to do so by the Hon. Judge’s court attorney. The mother claims her legal aid attorney informed her she could go home. As a result of her failure to return to Court on the afternoon one day, and the inability of the Court to reach her by telephone, the Judge transferred custody of the subject children to the father. The father made arrangements for that order to be enforced in Pennsylvania, and on the next day, he obtained physical custody of the children in Pennsylvania and brought them to his home in New York. They have lived with him since that time.

Published on: November 5, 2013

Mother’s Failure to Appear Results in Custody being Awarded to the Father

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple entered into a stipulation after their divorce. As per the terms, the mother had the sole custody of their two children and the father had certain rights of visitation. A New York Family Lawyer said tne provision was that the mother could not relocate outside of a fifty mile radius with the children. Subsequently, each party became involved with other long-term partners and each has had other children. Each family unit lived in various areas over the years until the mother moved to Pennsylvania.

The father then filed a petition for child custody. Despite being properly served with the petition, the mother did not appear in court for over three court appearances. A New York Custody Lawyer said in the fourth court appearance, the mother did appear in court in the morning, but then did not return to court in the afternoon. The mother claims her legal aid attorney informed her she could go home. As a result of her failure to return to court and the inability of the court to reach her by telephone, the judge transferred the custody of the children to the father. The father made arrangements for the order to be imposed in Pennsylvania, and on the next day, he obtained physical custody of the children in Pennsylvania and brought them to his home in New York. The children then lived with the father since that time.

During the trial each party called three witnesses. A Westchester County Family Lawyer said the father testified briefly about the terms of their divorce and about the mother’s multiple residences since then. According to the father’s testimony, the mother moved from one place to another before relocating to Pennsylvania. The transfer took place within a four year period of time. He testified he was given no advance notice of the said relocation to Pennsylvania which was over one hundred and forty miles from his home. The father further denies that he allowed the transfer. The mother then confirmed that she did not seek court’s approval about the relocation.

Published on: November 4, 2013

Court Decides Interstate Custody Dispute

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an application by the defendant husband to modify a judgment of divorce in order to grant him child custody of his two daughters. A New York Family Lawyer said the divorce decree awarded custody of the children to the wife based upon a separation agreement which was incorporated into the decree.

Shortly after the decree was entered, the parties entered into an addendum to the separation agreement whereby child custody was changed to the defendant husband and his obligation for child support payments accordingly deleted. However, the judgment of divorce was never modified to reflect these changes.

Child custody of both daughters continued in the husband without interruption until the summer of 1980. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that during the first half of this period, the wife exercised regular visitation in Rochester, New York, but she moved to the State of Texas. Following her relocation, she kept in contact with the children by telephone and had extended periods of visitation with them in Texas, primarily during the children’s summer vacations.

Published on: November 3, 2013

Court Looks at Jurisdictional Issue in Child Custody Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

A husband initially commenced a divorce proceeding in his place but the court declined to hear it since his children are United States citizens. The husband thereafter initiated the action again and an extensive decision of the court was issued on child custody and visitation.

A New York Family Lawyer said the parties have five children and at present, the four youngest children reside with the mother at a shelter, while the eldest child resides with the father at their marital residence. The parties are each in good health. An interpreter was also provided for the wife throughout the proceeding since she does not speak English. Even if the husband testified in English during the custody and visitation trial, he requested the use of an interpreter for the financial proceeding. The husband’s former attorney was relieved as counsel shortly after the decision of the matter was rendered. The attorney was then substituted.

During the party’s marriage, the husband worked in a construction industry which enabled him to financially support his family. Subsequently, the parties and their children traveled back to their hometown. The husband returned to the United States after two weeks, however, the wife and children were left at the husband’s parent’s house. Later, the wife and the youngest child left the husband’s parents’ home and went to live with the wife’s family in a nearby village over the objections of the husband and his family. The four eldest children remained with the husband’s parents. Thereafter, the marriage fractured.

Published on: November 3, 2013

Petitioner Seeks Support from Same Sex Partner

by Stephen Bilkis

This appeal presents the issue whether Family Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a child support petition brought pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) by a biological parent seeking child support from her former same-sex partner. A New York Family Lawyer said it is held that Family Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction to hear such a petition.

A Manhattan Family Lawyer said the mother seeks child support from her same sex partner. According to the mother’s allegations, which must be taken as true for present purposes, the parties were involved in a romantic relationship in New York from 1989 through 1995, and cohabited during much, if not all, of that period. During the first year of their relationship, they planned to conceive and raise a child together, discussing, among other things, available methods of conception, child-rearing practices, and whether the child would be raised as a sibling of the same sex partner’s children from a prior relationship. In 1993, after many failed attempts, the mother became pregnant by artificial insemination. The same sex partner performed the procedure by which the mother was inseminated.

The mother gave birth to a son and her same sex partner was present at the delivery and cut the umbilical cord, and the parties shared the expenses associated with the conception and birth of the child. After the child’s birth, both parties participated in his care. However, four months after the child was born, the same sex partner ended the relationship. The mother, a Canadian citizen, moved into her parents’ residence in Montreal with the child. An attempted reconciliation in 1997 failed, although the same sex partner continued to provide the mother with gifts for the child and monetary contributions for the child’s care at unspecified times after the parties’ separation.

Published on: November 1, 2013

Court Decides Whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus Confers to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The parties were married in California thereafter they resided together in Orange County, New York. A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent wife moved out of the marital residence. She was approximately seven months pregnant at the time. She filed a family offense petition in Orange County Family Court and was granted an ex parte Temporary Order of Protection against her petitioner husband. Through her attorney, she notified the Family Court that she was withdrawing the family offense petition which had not as yet been served upon her husband, and that she was leaving for the holidays with her family. That same day, she left New York and returned to her parents’ home in Alexandria Minnesota. She wrote to her husband she would be back with her parents. She did not return home to the marital residence after the holidays as she had previously indicated. The husband thereupon commenced an action for divorce by filing a Summons with Notice.

The infant child was born in Alexandria, Minnesota. A New York Child Custody Lawyer said the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued by the court and was made returnable. The writ was adjourned on consent to February 17th, on which date both the counsel and the complainant husband appeared and oral argument was held. The court waived the appearance of the infant who was only several days old when the writ was issued, and had developed some health issues. In the meanwhile, the respondent wife filed a petition in District Court of Douglas County, Minnesota for legal and physical child custody, child support, and to schedule parenting time for the husband.

The issue of whether a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus confers to the subject matter jurisdiction upon the Court to adjudicate the parties’ child custody dispute when the child is outside the State of New York when the petition was filed. A Bronx Family Lawyer said it is also an issue whether New York or Minnesota is the home state assuming the court does have subject matter jurisdiction.

Published on: October 31, 2013

Petitioner Seeks Support for Niece from Niece’s Father

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the complainant woman seeks support for her niece against her niece’s father. The support petition was originally dismissed by a hearing examiner. But, by order of a judge, the order of dismissal was vacated. Consequently, the matter remanded back to the hearing examiner to enter a temporary order in accordance with the law and for further proceedings. The judge stayed the proceedings until such time the court will enter an order providing for temporary or permanent custody or guardianship of the child.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that following the custody hearing, a referee, in a very carefully considered decision, reluctantly recommends the child’s custody to her aunt. The matter was then referred to a judge, who confirmed the referee’s findings of fact and issued a final order of custody to the child’s aunt. The matter was then administratively assigned to the court to decide the issue of child support.

The parties appeared, at which time it unsuccessfully attempted to settle the case. A Brooklyn Family Lawyer said the court also pointed out that the law might prevent the re-trial of certain facts material to the issue. A hearing was eventually held. Based upon the evidence presented, the court declines to issue an order of child support against the man.

Published on: October 30, 2013

Court Discusses Domestic Relations Law

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in a proceeding pursuant to article 3-A of the Domestic Relations Law (the Uniform Support of Dependents Law), petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court Queens County, dated November 1, 1976, which denied her motion for a “rehearing and reconsideration” of an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1976, which, on her application for increased child support, directed the respondent father to pay $50 per week for the support of the parties’ two infant children.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the parties to this appeal were married on August 14, 1965. There are two infant children of the marriage; they were born on February 25, 1966 and December 15, 1967, respectively. On November 17, 1971 the parties executed a separation agreement in which the respondent agreed to pay child support of $20 per week, per child, and alimony of $30 per week. A judgment of divorce was entered on May 5, 1972 in the Supreme Court, Queens County predicated on the separation agreement.

A Long Island Family Lawyer said that, on September 17, 1975 the appellant wife petitioned the Family Court, Dutchess County, for support. The proceeding was transferred to the Family Court, Queens County. By order dated November 14, 1975 that court directed respondent to pay child support in the amount of $40 per week. On February 19, 1976 the wife petitioned the Family Court, Dutchess County, for an upward modification of child support. That application was also transferred to the Family Court, Queens County, which conducted a hearing on April 12, 1976 and granted an increase of $5 per week, per child, as requested by the wife’s assigned counsel, the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. The wife was not present at this hearing.

Published on: October 29, 2013

Court Discusses Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to Damages for Death of Son

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said that, in an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 8, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and, upon renewal, adhered to so much of a prior determination of the same court, dated August 14, 1995, as denied that branch of their motion which was to inspect certain records of the Family Court, Queens County.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that, the defendant killed the plaintiffs’ son with a hammer and a knife and, as a result, was convicted in criminal court of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Pursuant to CPL 330.25, the matter was removed to the Family Court, Queens County, for disposition, and the court adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent. The file of defendant’s criminal proceedings was sealed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for wrongful death against defendant and for negligent entrustment of a dangerous weapon against the defendants’ parents.

Á Queens Family Lawyer said that, the plaintiffs moved for an order allowing them, inter alia, to inspect the Family Court file, after an in camera screening of the file by the Supreme Court to determine if information therein was relevant and material to the wrongful death action. The Supreme Court denied the motion. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted the motion of the respondents to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact that the respondents had negligently entrusted their son with the weapons used to kill the plaintiffs’ decedent. The court, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, also adhered to its prior determination denying access to the records of the Family Court.

Published on: October 28, 2013

Court Discusses Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Family Lawyer said the court has before it the petitioner’s objections to the order of Support Magistrate, dated March 7, 2007, dismissing the petition filed herein. A New York Child Support Lawyer said that, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Court Act Article 5-B), the petitioner (a resident of Canada), commenced this proceeding by filing a petition seeking the establishment of an order of paternity and child support. The petition alleged that the parties were engaged in a same-sex relationship between August 1989 and January 1995. During their relationship, the parties made plans to conceive and raise a child together. In December 1993, the petitioner became impregnated via artificial insemination. On September 20, 1994, the petitioner gave birth to a child.

A New York Child Custody Lawyer said that shortly after the birth of the child the parties’ relationship ended and petitioner, along with the child moved to Montreal, Canada. Petitioner claims that despite her requests, the respondent has not provided any support for the child. Petitioner seeks a declaration of parentage and an order of child support retroactive to the date of the birth of the child.

A New York Order of Protection Lawyer said that, on March 6, 2007, the parties appeared before Support Magistrate. Petitioner appeared via telephone, respondent personally and with counsel. Prior to conducting a hearing, upon oral application by counsel for respondent, the Support Magistrate dismissed the petition, finding that under the facts of the case and the laws of the State of New York, the court could not grant an order of filiation. The question of the appropriate amount of child support was never reached.