You are here: / / Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic...

Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic Court’s Denial of Father’s Application for Return of the Child

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed father’s petition for custody, despite a Dominican Republic court-ruling denying father’s application for return of the child. The application for return of the child was made pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention). The father’s petition for custody in New York was deemed proper under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.  The New York custody petition was not preempted by the court ruling in the Dominican Republic:

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) governs a New York State court’s jurisdiction in international child custody matters (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-d). Domestic Relations Law § 76, which establishes initial child custody jurisdiction, provides, inter alia, that a court of this Sate has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). “Home state” is defined [*2]as the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]). While “state” is defined as a “state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law 75-a[15]), pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, a “court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[1]).

The Convention, “done at The Hague on October 25, 1980, establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights” (42 USC § 11601[a];[4]). “The Convention seeks to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State and to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States” … . The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of rights of custody must be returned to his or her country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply … . Return is not required, for example, if the abducting parent can establish that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose him or her “to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation” … . A decision under the Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence … .

Here, it is undisputed that the United States was the child’s country of habitual residence, and that, at the time the petition was filed, New York was the child’s “home state.” Thus, the Family Court had jurisdiction to determine the father’s petition for custody (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). Moreover, the denial, by the court in the Dominican Republic, of the father’s application for a return of the child pursuant to the Convention, did not preempt his custody proceeding … . Accordingly, the Family Court erred in dismissing the father’s petition. Matter of Katz v Katz, 2014 NY Slip Op 03841, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

You might also like
OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO RAISE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR CONCERNING A JURY NOTE ON APPEAL; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Witness Impeached With Attorney’s Statements.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR A STUDENT TO ADDRESS DISMISSAL FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE, BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 HAS PASSED WILL NOT WORK (SECOND DEPT).
Tenants Not Compelled to Bring a Plenary Action to Enforce a Fair Market Rent Appeal Award Because They Withheld Rent Until the Principal Balance of the Award Was Fully Credited to Them—Therefore Tenants Were Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a)
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject... Lack of Standing Defense Waived By Absence from Answer—Objections to Authority...