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
ALTHOUGH AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THE GRASSY STRIP BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, HERE THE PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION; IN ADDITION, THE VILLAGE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON PROPERTY OWNERS, AN ISSUE PROPERLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of the Risk Does Not Apply to Game of “Manhunt” Played After Midnight on School Property
RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A SMALL CLAIMS ACTION, NO NEED TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL TO BRING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ACTION AGAINST A FORMER PARTNER IN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, SUA SPONTE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY ANY PARTY (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...