Visitation

Published on: August 11, 2025

Mother’s Violation Petition Denied; Father’s Relocation to Florida Granted. Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of Charlie R. v. Carol Q., the Family Court of Tompkins County addressed two petitions involving custody and parenting time for a child born in 2020. The mother filed a violation petition alleging that the father withheld court-ordered supervised parenting time. The father filed a relocation petition seeking to move with the child to Florida. This case involved application of the legal standard for relocation under Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996), which requires the moving parent to show that relocation is in the child’s best interests. It also highlights the consequences for withholding court-ordered supervised parenting time, which can include findings of contempt, fines, makeup time, and possible changes to custody.

Background Facts

In September 2022, the parents consented to an order granting the father sole custody and placement of the child, with supervised parenting time for the mother. Parenting time was to be arranged through the parties’ attorneys.

Published on: August 2, 2025

Mother Found in Contempt for Withholding Children from Court-Ordered Visitation. Matter of S.S. v. M.S., 2022 NY Slip Op 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Matter of S.S. v. M.S., the Family Court of New York County addressed a dispute over compliance with court-ordered parenting time. The father, M.S., filed a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against the mother, S.S., for failing to follow a visitation schedule.

Background Facts

S.S. and M.S. are the parents of four children born in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2021. Starting in December 2021, the parties engaged in extensive litigation involving custody, visitation, and family offense petitions. A temporary order of protection was initially issued in favor of the father and the children. This was later modified to allow the mother parenting time.

Published on: May 14, 2025

Mother Found in Contempt for Withholding Children from Court-Ordered Visitation. Matter of S.S. v. M.S., 2022 NY Slip Op 51090(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Failing to allow visitation in accordance with a court order can lead to serious legal consequences. The court may find the violating parent in civil contempt, which can result in penalties such as makeup parenting time, fines, or even jail time. Continued noncompliance may also affect custody arrangements, with the court potentially modifying custody in favor of the other parent. Violating visitation orders can harm the parent-child relationship and is viewed as interfering with the child’s best interests. Courts expect both parents to follow all custody and visitation orders unless a judge has approved a modification or suspension through proper legal channels.

In Matter of S.S. v. M.S., the Family Court of New York County addressed a dispute over compliance with court-ordered parenting time. The father, M.S., filed a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against the mother, S.S., for failing to follow a visitation schedule.

Background Facts

Published on: April 2, 2025

Court Ordered Temporary Custody Changes Pending Trial. B.N. v. J.N., 2024 NY Slip Op 51029(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

Child custody cases often present the court with difficult decisions that impact the well-being of a child. In the matter of B.N. v. J.N., the New York Family Court was asked to decide whether temporary changes to a custody agreement were needed after serious allegations were raised and the parenting relationship broke down. The court reviewed claims of interference, abuse, and threats, and issued several interim orders while the case moved toward a full hearing.

In custody matters, courts are guided by the best interests of the child. Judges consider several factors, including the stability of each parent’s home, the history of caregiving, the ability of each parent to support the child’s emotional and developmental needs, and the willingness of each parent to encourage a relationship with the other parent.

Background Facts

Published on: March 24, 2025

Paternal Grandmother Granted Custody After Mother’s Long Absence. Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., 2017 NY Slip Op 27192

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, courts decide child custody cases based on what is in the best interests of the child. When a non-parent seeks custody, the court must first decide if that person has legal standing. If standing is found, the court then considers many factors, including the child’s past and present care, the fitness of each party, and the strength of their relationships with the child. In Matter of Bhanmattie H. v. Roxanne H., the Family Court considered whether a grandmother who had cared for a child most of her life should receive custody after the child’s father passed away and the mother regained physical possession of the child.

Background Facts
Sydney, the child at the center of the case, lived in her paternal grandparents’ home from the time she was an infant. Although both parents initially lived there, the mother moved out when Sydney was very young. She briefly took Sydney with her but returned her to the father within two weeks. Sydney then continued living with her father and paternal grandmother.

When the parents divorced in 2011, the mother agreed to give the father primary residential custody. She rarely exercised her visitation rights and provided little to no financial support for Sydney.

Published on: October 7, 2024

Family Court, Kings County considered whether it had jurisdiction over a visitation case. R.L.BXXXXX v. C.D.GXXX (In re Custody of R.L.BXXXXX), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 29090 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

A Final Order of Visitation (FOV) in New York is a legal document issued by the court that establishes the specific rights of a non-custodial parent or other party to have visitation with a child. This order outlines the schedule, duration, and conditions under which visitation will occur, aiming to ensure that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent while considering the child’s best interests.

The FOV may include details such as the days, times, and locations for visitation, as well as provisions for holidays, vacations, and special occasions. It may also address transportation arrangements and communication between the parties during visitation periods.

Once issued, the FOV is legally binding, and both parties are expected to comply with its terms. Failure to adhere to the FOV can result in legal consequences, including enforcement actions or modifications of the visitation arrangements by the court.

Published on: September 18, 2024

Does a grandmother have standing to seek visitation? Noguera v. Busto, 189 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Noguera v. Busto, 189 A.D.3d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) centered around a maternal grandmother’s right to visitation with her grandchild, which was initially denied by the Family Court. In New York, grandparents may seek visitation rights if one or both parents are deceased, or if conditions warrant equitable intervention. The court must first determine standing based on these circumstances and then assess if visitation serves the child’s best interests, considering the existing relationship’s quality and duration.

Background Facts

The case involved a maternal grandmother who sought legal visitation rights to her grandchild, following a complex familial situation that crossed international borders. The child, born in 2009, was initially involved in custody proceedings between his parents. In 2012, during these proceedings, the mother unlawfully took the child from the United States to Argentina, without the consent of the father. This act triggered a lengthy and intense search involving multiple law enforcement agencies, including the police, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of State. In 2018, their efforts resulted in the successful return of the child to the father in the United States.

Published on: September 17, 2024

In the absence of specific related to why the move would be in the best interests of the child, the court denied a parental relocation request. Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a parent wants to relocate with their child, they must get the permission of the other parent or of the court. The court will approve such a request to relocate and modification of a custody order if it is in the best interests of the child.

In Betts v. Moore, 175 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019), the petitioner mother sought to modify an existing custody and visitation order, requesting permission to relocate with her child from Ontario County to Monroe County and seeking sole custody. The Family Court dismissed her petitions. On appeal, the mother argued that the court erred in its decision. The appellate court examined the case under the factors set out in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea to determine whether the relocation was in the best interests of the child.

Background Facts

Published on: July 15, 2024

Where a divorce was finalized in Vermont, can New York Family Court modify the provisions of the divorce decree related to parental access? Etzel v. Freleng 188 A.D.3d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Etzel v. Freleng, 188 A.D.3d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division addressed issues pertaining to jurisdiction in custody disputes where the divorce decree establishing custody was issued in Vermont.

Jurisdiction in divorce and custody cases is paramount for ensuring the proper adjudication of legal matters surrounding the dissolution of marriage and the welfare of children. One fundamental aspect of jurisdiction involves residency requirements, which mandate that parties must reside within a particular jurisdiction for a specified period before initiating legal proceedings. These requirements serve to establish a connection between the parties and the jurisdiction in which they seek relief, ensuring that the court has a legitimate basis for asserting authority over the case. Importantly, once a court in one state issues a custody order, that decision generally cannot be modified by another state. This principle upholds the finality of court decisions and prevents jurisdictional conflicts that could harm the child’s well-being.

Background Facts

Published on: June 10, 2024

Mother challenges court awarding father sole custody. Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

Allison v. Seeley-Sick, 199 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021) is an appeal from a an order issues in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding. A Family Court Act Article 6 proceeding refers to cases handled under Article 6 of the New York Family Court Act, which covers matters related to the custody, guardianship, and visitation of children.

These proceedings determine who will be legally responsible for a child’s care, who will make major decisions about the child’s life, and how visitation with a non-custodial parent will be handled. Article 6 provides the legal framework for addressing these issues, focusing on the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in any decision made by the court. This includes evaluating factors such as the stability of each parent, their ability to care for the child, the child’s wishes (depending on their age and maturity), and any history of abuse or neglect. These proceedings are necessary for establishing a legal arrangement that supports the child’s welfare and the rights of both parents.

In Allison v. Seeley-Sick, the order, dated August 2019, encompassed various modifications sought by the petitioner father, ultimately granting him sole custody of the children with supervised visitation for the mother. The ensuing legal debate revolved around the mother’s challenge to this decision, alleging, among other things, an abuse of discretion and failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying the modification.