You are here: / / Court Should Have Held Lincoln Hearing to Learn Preferences of 12-Year-Old...

Court Should Have Held Lincoln Hearing to Learn Preferences of 12-Year-Old Child

The Third Department remitted the matter to Family Court for a Lincoln hearing to determine the preferences of the 12-year-old child with respect to custody:

While the decision whether to conduct such a hearing lies within the court’s discretion …, it is often the preferable course … .  In this case, the court originally indicated that it intended to speak with the child and later reiterated this position.  While we can assume that the court ultimately decided that an interview with the child was not warranted or appropriate, the record is bereft of any articulation or explanation for such decision.

Additionally, we cannot ascertain from the record whether Family Court failed to consider the child’s wishes with respect to spending time with her father or whether it considered the child’s wishes, but rejected them as a basis for a modification. While Family Court stated in regard to the violation petition that the child’s wishes did not excuse the mother from complying with the existing orders, it is not clear to what extent, if any, this conclusion played in the court’s determination regarding the modification petition.  To be sure, the wishes of this 12-yearold child were “at minimum, entitled to consideration” …, and the record does not reflect whether such consideration was given to the child’s wishes.  As a result, and because we conclude that a Lincoln hearing is called for under the circumstances here … , we must remit the modification petition to Family Court. Matter of Yeager v Yeager, 515860, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

You might also like
Father, Who Had Not Been Informed of the Birth of His Child Until After the Child Was Adopted, Was Properly Awarded Custody of the Child
SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.
AUNT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION, AWARDING ADDITIONAL VISITATION TO GRANDPARENTS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE AND THE ONLY FEMALE MANUAL-LABOR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS TERMINATED SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER GENDER; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REINSTATED HER WITH BACK PAY (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT.
HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN PETITIONER’S HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED.
Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel
RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (THIRD 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

Father Not Denied Due Process by Absence from Portion of Neglect Proceeding Failure to Call Treating Physician Allowed Negative Inference in Case Alleging...