You are here: / / Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded...

Even though Mother Properly Awarded Custody, Father Should Have Been Awarded Decision-Making Authority Re: Education

In affirming Family Court’s award of sole custody to mother, the Second Department determined the father should have been awarded decision-making authority for the child’s education:

When joint custody is not possible because of the antagonistic relationship between the parties…, it may be appropriate, depending upon the particular circumstances of the case, to award some custodial decision-making authority to the noncustodial parent…. The division of authority should be made in a manner intended to take advantage of the strengths and abilities of the noncustodial parent with respect to a particular dimension of child-rearing…. The Family Court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interests to award the mother decision-making authority with respect to the child’s education is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. The father researched educational options for the subject child at every stage of his schooling. Once the child started school and began receiving homework assignments, the father supervised his homework, took part in school-related activities, and remained involved with his schooling at every stage. The father contacted the child’s teachers regarding issues of concern. Jacobs v Young, 2013 NY Slip Op 04607, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
​ DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BY MAKING AN UNREASONABLE LEFT TURN IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (NEGLIGENCE PER SE); THE COURT MAY DETERMINE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AS A MATTER OF LAW IF ONLY ONE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Driver Stalled in Moving Lane of Traffic Not Negligent Re: Rear-End Collisi... Refusal to Allow DSS Workers Into Apartment Did Not Constitute Neglect